ABDUL QUDDUS & ANOTHER V. THE STATE — 3 BLD 18
Fact: Ferdousi Begum aged around 16 at that time, when went to her maternal grandparents house, on 27th April, 1979 when she came out to answer the call of nature, accused appellants Abul Hossain and Abdul Quddus caught hold and carried her away, then they force her to marry accused appellant Abdul Quddus but on the question of consent she refuse and Kazi left touring the paper. Then they abduct her and kept her in several places where both of the accused raped her against her will. She was kept confined about six days, then the said two accused took her to Bogra, there they take advise form one advocate Bazle Mondol, took her to a doctor and paid the doctor to give a medical certification as the to the age of the victim PW2 Ferdousi Begum as 17 years. After obtaining such medical certificate they took her to another Kazi, before that they threaten the victim with death and bound her to give consent. After two days she was brought back to Bogra where accused appellant Abdul Quddus showed a Court-marriage. Few days later she and accused Abdul Quddus was arrested by police from Gaibandha as against the GD made by Ferdousi Begum’s grandfather, When she was produced before the Magistrate 1st class she disclosed all the matters before the magistrate.
Issue: Whether uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is admissible or not?
Argument: The defense argued that Ferdousi Begum was in love with accused Abdul Quddus and was married with consent so she is an accomplish as a result Court may presume her to be unworthy of credit unless she is corroborated in material particulars as per section 114 (illustraiton) (b) of Evidence act 1872
Prosecution produced the evidence that Ferdousi Begum was below 17 and was a minor at the time abduction so she is not an accomplish. They also produced other circumstantial evidences which helps to prove their aforesaid fact to corroborate with the confession before the magistrate of 1st class under section 164 of CrPC. Section 133 of evidence act says “An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” On the other hand Illustration (b) of 144 use “Court may presume … unworthy of credit unless she is corroborated” so far by many case reference it is established that it is courts power to consider such matters and there are enough evidence that would satisfy the court.
Judgment: The appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against accused appellants Abdul Quddus @ Nausha and Abul Hossain under section 376 of the Penal Code is upheld. The order of conviction passed against the said two accused appellants under Section 366 of the Penal Code is also upheld.
Opinion: If we consider all the evidence produced before the court it is already proved that the said victim confessed against the accused appellant which would be unusual if she had have her consent during marriage so she cannot be an accomplish even if she does so there were enough corroborating circumstantial evidence to prove her truth.