After 19 years, he was acquitted of the charge of Rs 2,000

19 years ago, the High Court has acquitted an accused named Sujan from punishment in a case filed in Rupnagar, Pallabir, capital, for demanding Rs 2,000 as extortion. He was sentenced to two years.

On March 9, 2023, High Court Judge Md. Single Bench of Ashraful Kamal. This judgment was published recently.

Deputy Attorney General Advocate Md. Ashek Momin, Assistant Attorney General Advocate Lucky Begum and Ferdowsi Akhter. There was no lawyer for the accused.

According to the records of the case, on May 30, 2005, a person named Sujan demanded Rs 2,000 in a tea shop in Rupnagar. The other accused Sayem sent him for this donation.

He threatened to vandalize the shop if he did not pay. Later on June 1, he again demanded the subscription. At that time, a patrolling party of law and order forces went to the plaintiff’s shop after hearing the commotion. Accused Sujan was arrested after hearing the incident. Later the shopkeeper reported to Pallabi police station.

In this case, charges were framed against the two accused on June 12, 2005. However, the defendant claims that the plaintiff and the defendant are previously known. Plaintiff borrowed Rs.2000 from Sujan for running the shop. When the shopkeeper wanted to return the money, there was an argument and the shopkeeper filed a false case.

After the trial of this case, the Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Trial Court-4) sentenced the accused to imprisonment on August 28, 2005. In the verdict, Saim was acquitted and Sujan was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and one month’s imprisonment without paying a fine of two thousand rupees.

After an appeal against this judgment in 2005, the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court rejected the appeal on February 28, 2006. Then he filed a revision in the High Court.

After the hearing, the High Court gave its verdict on March 9, 2023.

In the judgment, the Revision High Court quashed the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court and acquitted Sujan of the charges.

In the verdict, the High Court said that witness number 2 said that he did not see the incident. He also has a shop and the accused did not demand any contribution from his shop. The extortionist will demand payment from all shops. But in this case the accused just asking for money from the plaintiff’s shop proves something else. Witness No. 3 has been declared hostile. Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have not mentioned that they saw the accused at the spot. A review of the entire matter shows that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges. The plaintiff filed the said false case to harass the accused. So Sujan was acquitted of the charges.