Mere Abscondence Cannot Justify Conviction Without Evidence: High Court
 |
| High Court sets aside three-year jail term and Tk 69,000 fine in corruption case, acquitting former record keeper as the prosecution failed to establish the alleged bribe payments through reliable evidence. |
The judgment was delivered on September 14, 2026, by a single bench of the High Court Division comprising Justice Md. Bashir Ullah in Nil Baran Tripura v. The State and another, Criminal Appeal No. 6464 of 2024. The judgment was published on the Supreme Court's website on October 12, 2026.
The court observed that allegations of corruption must be established through reliable and legally admissible evidence. Irregularities in official records, forged notices, fictitious appeal numbers or suspicious conduct alone cannot justify a criminal conviction.
Background of the Case
According to the case records, Nil Baran Tripura served as a record keeper at the Chatak Settlement Office in Sunamganj from October 9, 1991, to September 15, 2009.
He was accused of taking money from various individuals in the name of correcting land records and filing appeals. The allegations also included issuing fictitious appeal numbers and receipts, preparing forged notices, forging the signatures of relevant officials, and making irregular alterations to official land records.
Following these allegations, a case was filed at Chatak Police Station on April 14, 2010. After an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), a charge sheet was submitted under Section 161 of the Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The case was registered as Special Case No. 12 of 2011. On March 30, 2022, the Special Judge's Court in Sylhet convicted Tripura under the aforementioned provisions. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under each provision and fined Tk 69,000. The two prison terms were ordered to run concurrently.
Challenging the conviction and sentence, Tripura subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court.
Lack of Specific Evidence of Bribe Payments
During the appeal hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that no witness had reliably established that Tripura received a bribe. The prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent accounts and failed to provide specific details regarding the dates, times, places and circumstances of the alleged payments.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that the evidence established the allegations and demonstrated that the appellant had abused his official position to obtain financial benefits.
After examining the submissions of both sides, the trial court's judgment and the evidence on record, the High Court found that the prosecution witnesses had failed to provide sufficiently specific details of the alleged bribe transactions.
One witness could not specify the date, time or place of the alleged payment of Tk 9,000. Another witness claimed to have paid between Tk 40,000 and Tk 45,000 but failed to establish the precise amount or the time and place of the transaction. His testimony was not corroborated by any other prosecution witness.
The court also noted that the investigating officer alleged that the appellant had received Tk 60,000 from another individual. However, that individual was not produced as a prosecution witness. Consequently, the alleged payment could not be independently established through the investigating officer's testimony alone.
Investigative Findings Cannot Substitute for Proof
The High Court observed that an investigating officer's account of information obtained from another person during an investigation does not, by itself, constitute substantive proof of an alleged financial transaction.
The failure to produce a material witness, coupled with the absence of reliable corroborating evidence, weakened the prosecution's case.
According to the court, allegations of forged notices, fictitious appeal numbers and irregularities in official records might raise suspicion. However, the prosecution was required to establish a reliable connection between those irregularities and the specific allegations of demanding or accepting illegal gratification.
The court emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Absconding Alone Does Not Establish Guilt
The trial had proceeded in the appellant's absence, an issue that the High Court also examined.
The court found no evidence on record demonstrating that an arrest warrant had been executed at the appellant's workplace or that the necessary proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been duly undertaken.
The court observed that absence from trial and knowingly evading the legal process are not the same. Without evidence that an accused knew about the proceedings and deliberately avoided the court's process, mere absence cannot safely be treated as an incriminating circumstance.
In support of this principle, the High Court referred to State v. Lalu Miah and another, reported in 39 DLR (AD) (1987) 117, and State v. Balai Chandra Sarker, reported in 47 DLR (1995) 467.
These decisions recognise that abscondence, without supporting evidence or conclusive circumstances, cannot independently establish guilt.
The court further noted that the appellant learned of the judgment on September 5, 2023, surrendered before the trial court on October 3, 2023, and subsequently filed the appeal. Regardless of the explanation for his earlier absence, the court held that such conduct could not cure the fundamental deficiencies in the evidence concerning the alleged bribe payments.
High Court's Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded or accepted illegal gratification.
The evidence concerning the alleged payments was vague, inconsistent or uncorroborated, while some allegations relied on information that had not been proved through the persons directly concerned.
The court reiterated that the burden of proving a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. Where the evidence reasonably permits more than one view, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.
The court also held that irregularities in official records, even if established, do not automatically prove the offence of accepting illegal gratification.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated March 30, 2022, passed by the Special Judge's Court in Sylhet. It acquitted Nil Baran Tripura of the charges and ordered the release of his bail bond.
BDLawPost / Masum
