High Court Sets Aside Conviction After Main Accused Is Acquitted in Acid Attack Case

Justice Sk. Tahsin Ali delivered the judgment on 18 May 2026 in Abul Kalam vs The State (Criminal Revision No. 1303 of 2015). The revision petition challenged the judgment and order dated 8 July 2015 passed by the Senior Sessions Judge, Lakshmipur. The full text of the judgment was published on the Supreme Court’s website on 25 October 2026.

Facts of the Case

According to the case records, on 9 June 1993, at around 9:00 pm, an allegation was raised that acid had been thrown on the body of Momtaj Begum in the area under Ramgati Police Station in Lakshmipur. Abul Kalam and three others were accused in connection with the incident. The victim’s father, Fazlul Karim, lodged a case with the police.

Following the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused under Section 326(A) of the Penal Code. On 25 August 1999, the then Additional District Magistrate, Lakshmipur, convicted all four accused and sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Tk. 10,000 each, with an additional one year of simple imprisonment in default of payment.

Subsequently, the principal accused, Md. Hannan, and Md. Lokman Hossain alias Babul, preferred an appeal and were acquitted by the appellate court. However, Abul Kalam’s appeal was dismissed by the Senior Sessions Judge, Lakshmipur, on 8 July 2015. Aggrieved by that decision, he filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

The petitioner’s lawyer, Mohammad Giasuddin, argued that the medical evidence and other materials on record raised significant questions regarding the allegations.

The medical officer, examined as PW-6, testified that the injuries could have been caused by a toxic liquid. On the other hand, according to the deposition of PW-1, the victim was admitted to Maizdi Hospital two days after the incident. The defence pointed out that no treatment report relating to the injuries was available on the case record.

The defence further submitted that Abul Kalam had already served approximately three years of his seven-year prison sentence.

High Court’s Observations

Upon examining the case records, the Court observed that the statements made by co-accused Hannan and Lokman under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, together with the medical report and the First Information Report, supported the allegation that Hannan was responsible for the attack on the victim.

The Court also considered the statement made by the victim, Momtaj Begum, before the Magistrate at Companyganj, Noakhali, on 17 June 1993. According to that statement, Hannan alone had committed the offence out of anger and frustration after the victim refused to marry him. The record further indicated that Hannan had allegedly written his name on the victim’s body.

The High Court noted that Hannan, identified as the principal perpetrator, had already been acquitted by the appellate court. In these circumstances, the Court found that the present petitioner, Abul Kalam, stood on a better footing and was entitled to the same benefit.

Judgment of the High Court

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court found merit in the revision petition and made the Rule absolute.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment and order dated 8 July 2015 passed by the Senior Sessions Judge, Lakshmipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1999, which had upheld the petitioner’s conviction and sentence.

Case Details

Case Name: Abul Kalam vs The State

Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1303 of 2015

Date of Judgment: 18 May 2026

Justice: Justice Sk. Tahsin Ali, High Court Division

BD Law Post/Masum