Play store
The High Court has ruled that the trial of cases filed under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act cannot be stayed or dismissed simply because the proceedings are not completed within the statutory 180-day period.
The court said the 180-day timeframe for completing trials is directory, not mandatory. Although tribunals are required to make every effort to conclude trials within the stipulated period, the expiry of the deadline does not automatically invalidate proceedings or create any legal bar to continuing the trial.
The ruling came in the case of Md Saiful Islam alias Pavel vs the State, involving a rape case filed by the mother of an Eden College student.
A High Court bench comprising Justice KM Kamrul Kader and Justice Mohammad Shawkat Ali delivered the judgment on June 7, 2023, rejecting a rule issued in response to Pavel’s writ petition. A copy of the judgment was recently published on the Supreme Court website.
The court observed that a careful reading of Sections 20 and 31A of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, shows that there is no provision for staying or terminating a trial merely because it was not completed within 180 days.
The law requires a tribunal to complete the trial within the stipulated period and, if it fails to do so, submit a report explaining the reasons for the delay. However, the law does not prescribe termination or suspension of the proceedings as a consequence of missing the deadline.
According to the judgment, Pavel became acquainted with the 20-year-old first-year honours student of Eden College while travelling to and from college. On July 8, 2007, she went to a house with Pavel, where he allegedly raped her against her will after proposing marriage.
The judgment said Pavel subsequently raped her several times, leaving her pregnant. She was later allegedly forced to undergo an abortion when she was five months pregnant.
The victim’s mother filed a case against Pavel and several others with Shyampur Police Station in Dhaka on January 27, 2008. Following an investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against Pavel and others.
The case was later transferred to the Dhaka Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-1, which framed charges against Pavel on July 23, 2008. He pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.
Pavel filed a writ petition with the High Court on May 8, 2011, arguing that the case had not been concluded within the 180-day period prescribed by Section 20 of the 2000 Act.
He also argued that although Section 31A requires the tribunal, public prosecutor and concerned police officer to submit a report to the Supreme Court and the government within 30 days explaining the reasons for failing to complete the trial on time, no such report had been submitted.
The High Court initially stayed the trial for three months and subsequently extended the stay from time to time.
After examining the arguments and relevant provisions of the law, the High Court rejected the rule and withdrew the earlier stay order.
In its judgment, the court also observed that Pavel had allegedly concealed subsequent orders issued after November 7, 2010, while filing the writ petition, and said the grounds presented for staying the proceedings did not establish any violation of his fundamental rights.
The court ultimately found no merit in the rule and dismissed it.