In the full text of a maiden verdict, the High Court directed the lower courts and the tribunals of the country to hold a separate hearing on sentencing of the accused before the deliberation of the final judgment in the case.
In its judgement, the HC verdict said that from now on, no one could be sentenced directly after the conviction of the crime. After the accused is found guilty, a separate sentencing hearing will be held before the verdict is pronounced.
The HC verdict directed the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh to send a copy of this judgment containing above directions or to issue a circular in this regard directing the Courts and the Tribunals concerned in Bangladesh to comply with the above directions about sentencing.
The HC also asked the authorities concerned to send a copy of the judgement to the law secretary for necessary actions in this regard.
On the conduct of this hearing, the High Court judgment said that the following manners would be followed:
(a) When the final argument of the parties is concluded and the judge has made up his mind to convict the accused for the offences punishable with death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of years, the judge shall express his/her such mind to the parties in open Court or Tribunal and then shall fix a date, within shortest possible time, for separate hearing on sentencing of the accused in order to determine the appropriate sentences to be imposed, according to the HC verdict.
(b) In such hearing, the parties shall be entitled to produce the aggravating and mitigating materials available in their possession including the social background, crime record, age, financial status etc of the accused as indicated by our Appellate Division in its majority judgment in Ataur Mridha vs State of the reported case keeping in mind the intention of the Legislature as inherent in sub-section (5) of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the HC verdict noted.
(c) In such hearing, the trial judge shall balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances with an eye on the particular issues like the nature of sentence, circumstances of its commission, the age and character of the offender, the injury to the individuals or to the society, whether the offender is a habitual, casual or a professional offender, effect of punishment on the offender, delay in the trial and mental agony suffered by the offender during the prolonged trial and even with an eye on correction and reformation of the offender etc, and only after that the trial judge shall deliver/pronounce the judgment and order of conviction along with sentence, the HC verdict explained.
The HC bench comprising Justice Sheikh Hasan Arif and Justice Biswajit Debnath gave these directions in the full copy of the judgment, which commuted the sentence of a death-row convict to life imprisonment in connection with a case.
It was known from the case statement that a case was filed against Anwar Hossain and Md Lavlu on March 24 in 2014 in Jessore Kotwali police station on charge of rape and murder of a class IV student.
Among the accused, Anwar Hossain had already died. Then on April 20 in 2015 a complaint was filed against Lavlu for the charge of the incident.
On May 30 in 2017, the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal of Jessore awarded death sentenced to Lavlu in the case.
Jail authorities then send the case to the High Court as a death reference. Apart from this, the accused filed appeal with the High Court against the tribunal verdict.
After hearing on the death reference and appeal, the HC had on February 27 and 28 this year delivered its verdict by dismissing the death reference and partially allowing the appeal of the accused.
In its verdict, the HC bench commuted the death sentence of the appellant to life imprisonment in the case.
The HC bench recently published the full text of its verdict, which is available in the Supreme Court website under the headline of "Death Reference 75/2017 (with Crl Appeal No. 6509 of 2017 with Jail Appeal No. 264 of 2017)."
