Dhubri Judge's Unprecedented Move Brings Justice in 16-Year-Old Murder Case
In a remarkable departure from conventional courtroom procedures, the additional sessions judge of Dhubri sessions court has demonstrated extraordinary judicial sensitivity to ensure the conclusion of the court's oldest pending case—a murder trial that has lingered for 16 years. The judge's innovative approach involved physically visiting the homes of two paralyzed and bedridden accused individuals and subsequently conducting judgment and sentencing hearings in the court's parking area.
Judicial Flexibility for Paralyzed Accused
The extraordinary circumstances began when two of the eight accused in the case—Sirajul Haque (identified as A-2) and Moinul Haque, also known as Khuta (A-6)—filed applications on January 6 this year. They pleaded that they were paralyzed and completely bedridden, unable to attend court proceedings. Rather than allowing the trial to stall indefinitely, Additional Sessions Judge Syed Burhanur Rahman took decisive action.
On January 19, Judge Rahman personally visited the homes of both accused to record their statements of defense. In his subsequent order, he acknowledged the crucial assistance provided by Additional Public Prosecutor Dinesh Choudhury and the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri police station. "Without their assistance, the recording of statements of defense could not be possible till the recovery of A-2 and A-6," Judge Rahman noted, adding that "the period of which is highly uncertain and in that scenario the trial would be lingering for years to come."
Parking Area Transformed into Courtroom
The court's adaptability was further demonstrated on Tuesday when the judgment and sentencing hearings for the two paralyzed accused were conducted in an unconventional venue: the parking area of the court premises. Judge Rahman explained this decision was necessary because "there were difficulties on their part to come inside the court room."
Additional Public Prosecutor Dinesh Choudhury provided vivid details of the scene: "The two accused were in ambulances in the parking area and they were not in a condition to climb to the court room on the first floor. The judge himself came down and conducted both the judgment as well as the sentence hearing for the two in the parking area. This is rare and exemplary display of judicial sensibility, which is unheard of."
Conviction and Sentencing in Historic Case
All eight accused in the case—Saminul Hoque, Sirajul Haque, Abdul Matin Sk, Mansur Hussain (also known as Naria), Anisur Rahman (also known as Khetkhata), Moinul Haque (also known as Khuta), Atowar Rahman (also known as Jalchora), and Mostafijur Rahman (also known as Matu)—were convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC.
The court sentenced each convict to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000. A default penalty of three months' additional rigorous imprisonment was specified for failure to pay the fine. Notably, despite the accused's claims of paralysis, no medical certificates had been furnished by the defense to substantiate these assertions.
Medical Care Directive and Case Background
In a compassionate yet practical order, the court directed the superintendent of Dhubri Jail to immediately transport the two paralyzed accused to Dhubri Medical College and Hospital for comprehensive medical examination and treatment as advised by doctors.
The case originated from a tragic incident on January 11, 2010, when Azizur Rahman filed an FIR at Dhubri police station. According to the complaint, his younger brother Anowar Hussain was brutally attacked at Adabari Chowmore by a group of men armed with rods, khapor (a traditional weapon), and sharp weapons. Anowar sustained grievous injuries to his head and body and was initially rushed to Dhubri Civil Hospital before being transferred to GNRC Guwahati. Despite medical efforts, he succumbed to his injuries after ten days.
The post-mortem report, referenced by the court, confirmed multiple blunt force injuries to the head. A chargesheet was filed on November 21, 2011, and charges were formally framed on May 16, 2013, beginning the lengthy judicial process that has now reached its conclusion through unprecedented judicial accommodation.
This extraordinary case demonstrates how judicial flexibility, when applied with wisdom and compassion, can overcome practical obstacles to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied, even in the most challenging circumstances. The Dhubri court's approach sets a significant precedent for accommodating genuine disabilities within the justice delivery system while maintaining the solemnity and authority of judicial proceedings.
