The High Court has sharply criticised the trial court’s decision to impose the death penalty on four accused in the high-profile murder case of Feni madrasa student Nusrat Jahan Rafi, saying the sentences were imposed without even minimal evidence against them.
The observation came in the full text of the High Court verdict, which said “not even a shred of evidence” was found against Shamim, Ruhul Amin, councillor Maksud and Afsaruddin, yet they were sentenced to death.
As a result, the four accused spent nearly seven years on death row, which the court said had a devastating impact on their families.
The High Court observed that such irresponsible sentencing was not expected in a civilised society and criticised the trial judge for a lack of sensitivity.
The verdict also made a strong observation that the judge should be kept from performing duties as a sessions judge until properly mastering the fundamental principles of the Penal Code and sentencing guidelines.
Regarding the order to kill Nusrat, the verdict said the murder plot was hatched after she refused to withdraw the sexual harassment case filed by her mother against madrasa principal Siraj-ud-Daula.
According to the court’s findings, Siraj ordered Nusrat’s murder and the accused planned to stage the incident as a suicide.
Six accused, including Siraj, were involved in planning, abetting and executing the murder, the verdict said.
The court found that the confessional statements of the accused were corroborated by circumstantial evidence and established their involvement in the murder.
Regarding the principal accomplices, the High Court said Shahadat Hossain Shamim and Nuruddin played key roles in carrying out Siraj-ud-Daula’s order to kill Nusrat and make the incident appear to be a suicide.
The verdict said Siraj incited Shamim, Nuruddin, Javed and Zubayer to kill Nusrat after she refused to withdraw the case against him.
The High Court also described Nusrat’s dying declaration as “flawless” and treated it as crucial evidence. It found that the declaration met the criteria for admissibility and clearly implicated the four individuals in the crime.
The court also accepted the confessional statements of the convicted accused as truthful and voluntary.
It found no evidence to substantiate defence allegations that the accused had been tortured during remand. The court said the case records contained no proof of torture and that merely being remanded for interrogation did not make the confessions unreliable.
Earlier, on August 24, the High Court upheld the death sentences of madrasa principal Siraj-ud-Daula and madrasa student Shahadat Hossain Shamim in the Nusrat murder case.
However, the court acquitted four other convicts of the capital punishment charge, finding insufficient evidence to justify the maximum penalty.
The death sentences of four other convicts—madrasa students Nur Uddin, Saifur Rahman Mohammad Jobayer, Javed Hossain alias Sakhawat Hossain Javed, and Umme Sultana Popy alias Tuhin—were commuted to life imprisonment.
The full verdict emphasises the importance of reliable and distinct evidence against each accused, particularly when imposing the death penalty, and underscores that the gravity of a crime cannot substitute for sufficient evidence in determining criminal liability.