Accused Acquitted in Dowry Case as Prosecution Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: High Court's Judgement
 |
| The Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
Justice Md. Bashir Ullah of the High Court Division delivered the judgment on 14 September 2026 in Criminal Revision No. 2654 of 2025. The case arose from C.R. Case No. 64 of 2022 of Gomostapur Police Station, Chapainawabganj, filed under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018. The judgement has been on the website of the Supreme Court on 4 October, 2026.
Background of the Case
The complainant married the accused, Md. Rabiul Islam, on 30 June 2010, and they have two children. According to the complaint, the complainant’s parents gave Tk. 4 lakh at the time of marriage. A few days later, the accused allegedly demanded another Tk. 3 lakh as dowry, following which the complainant’s father paid Tk. 2 lakh.
The complaint further alleged that on 10 February 2022, the accused again demanded Tk. 3 lakh as dowry and, upon refusal, assaulted the complainant and drove her out of the house. The complainant subsequently filed the case on 22 February 2022 under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018.
During the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, while the defence examined one witness. The Senior Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Chapainawabganj, convicted the accused on 31 May 2023 and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Tk. 5,000, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default.
The accused challenged the conviction before the Sessions Judge, Chapainawabganj, but the appeal was dismissed on 8 November 2023. He then approached the High Court by filing the criminal revision.
Defence Case Before the High Court:
The defence argued that the dowry case was filed as a retaliatory measure. Prior to the present case, the accused had instituted Criminal Case No. 10C of 2022 against the complainant and her father. The defence contended that the present case was subsequently filed to harass the accused.
The defence also argued that the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies and was insufficient to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Material Inconsistencies in the Evidence:
The High Court found significant discrepancies concerning the accused’s presence at the complainant’s father’s residence and the duration of his alleged stay there.
The complainant, PW1, stated in cross-examination that the accused arrived at around 3:00 p.m. and left at approximately 5:00–6:00 p.m. However, PW2, the complainant’s father, stated that the accused stayed at his house for only 10–15 minutes.
The Court held that these statements created a material inconsistency regarding the accused’s presence and the duration of his stay at the alleged place of occurrence.
The Court also noted that PW4 failed to mention the date and time of the alleged dowry demand and alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant’s father, although none of the other prosecution witnesses corroborated that allegation.
Defence Evidence Supporting the Alibi:
The defence examined DW1, Biplab Rabi Das, who testified that the accused was working as a Field Assistant at his office and was present there throughout the day on 10 February 2022, the alleged date of occurrence. His presence was recorded in the office attendance register.
The High Court found that this evidence was not materially shaken during cross-examination. The Court observed that the defence version became particularly relevant in light of the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ accounts regarding the accused’s presence at the alleged place of occurrence.
High Court’s Legal Findings:
The High Court held that the prosecution evidence suffered from material inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the accused’s presence and duration of stay at the complainant’s father’s residence. The prosecution therefore failed to establish this important circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court further observed that the prosecution had failed to present a consistent and sufficiently reliable account of the circumstances surrounding the alleged dowry demand. The discrepancies regarding the time of the alleged demand and occurrence, together with the contradictions in the witnesses’ testimony, created reasonable doubt as to whether the accused had actually made the alleged dowry demand.
The Court reiterated the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favour of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution failed to discharge that burden.
The Court also found that the accused’s presence at his workplace at the relevant time was supported by unimpeached defence evidence, which the prosecution could not discredit through cross-examination. The prior criminal case filed by the accused against the complainant’s father was also considered relevant to the background of the dispute.
Judgment:
Considering the contradictions and vagueness in the prosecution evidence and the prosecution’s failure to prove the ingredients of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018 beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the Court made the Rule absolute, set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge dated 8 November 2023 and the judgment of the Senior Judicial Magistrate dated 31 May 2023, and acquitted Md. Rabiul Islam of the charge. The Court also discharged him from his bail bond.
Result: Rule made absolute; convictions and sentences set aside; accused acquitted.
BD Law Post/Masum
