Dhaka Raintree hotel rape case verdict: It may encourage offenders

Shahdeen Malik

Noted jurist Shahdeen Malik said the observation by the judge was just a comment made by an individual judge and that it had no legal value.

“There is no scope to consider an observation made by the judge of a trial court as an explanation of law,” he told The Daily Star yesterday when his attention was drawn to the recommendation by judge Kamrunnahar.

“An observation made by a trial court has no legal value or obligation,” he said. “If the High Court division and the Appellate division of the Supreme Court make any interpretation of law, that has to be followed.”

Delivering the verdict in the case on Thursday, the judge noted that the Banani Raintree case was lodged 38 days after the incident happened, and so no DNA evidence could be found. “Semen cannot be traced after 72 hours…”

Khurshid Alam Khan

Khurshid Alam Khan, a Supreme Court lawyer and Editor of Dhaka Law Reports (DLR), said the recommendation made by the judge would encourage the rapists.

“The observation made by the judge with regard to filing of the rape case in 72 hours is totally irrelevant to our socioeconomic condition. Her observation can encourage the rapists,” he said.

He said first information reports were filed even 100 hours after rapes were committed, but the prosecution succeeded in proving the cases in court relying upon circumstantial evidences and evidences of victims. “Thus, culprits were punished.”

He said, “I think the prosecution has miserably failed in discharging its duty of proving the allegation of rape [in the Raintree case]. It is a very fit case for moving an appeal before the High Court Division challenging the tribunal verdict of acquittal.”

The lawyer also said, “From newspaper reports, it appears to me that Judge Mosammat Kamrunnahar has acquitted the accused on the ground that the allegation of rape has not been proved. But from the circumstantial evidences as well as the evidence of the victims, it can be said that the case of rape has been proved”.

In this context, the tribunal judge could have relied upon the relevant decisions of the Supreme Courts of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. According to the decisions, judges can consider the testimony of the victims for conviction of the accused. But Judge Mosammat Kamrunnahar has failed to do it, he said.

“The judgement was delivered on the basis of medical report and evidence from doctors. But I think that apart from medical reports, there were sufficient evidence to convict the accused in the case,” he added.

Daily Star