On 30th May 2017, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Jessore, sentenced Md. Lavlu to death under Section 9(3) of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. However, during the confirmation process of the death penalty, the High Court Division commuted the punishment to life imprisonment and provided various comprehensive and far-reaching directions to all trial courts and tribunals in Bangladesh.

Md. Billal Hossain lodged a case at Kotwali Model Thana, Jessore, against Anwar Hossain and Lavlu, alleging that they were responsible for the rape and murder of his daughter, Sabina Khatun. The tragic incident occurred on 23rd March 2014 when Sabina’s dead body, tying-up hands, legs and mouth, was discovered at 9:15 PM on Anwar’s paddy land. Upon receiving the post mortem report, the police apprehended Lavlu, who confessed to the crime before a Magistrate. Subsequently, the investigating officer recorded witness statements and found sufficient evidence against both accused, leading to the submission of a charge sheet. During the trial, one of the accused, Anower Hossain, passed away, leaving Lavlu as the sole remaining defendant. However, when Lavlu was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he pleaded not guilty and chose not to provide any defense evidence. After considering the arguments from both sides, the tribunal found Lavlu guilty and sentenced him to death, along with a fine of 100,000 BDT. The case records were then sent to the High Court Division for the confirmation of the imposed death sentence following section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

After considering the facts and the law, the court decided to reject the death sentence which was imposed by Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Jessore. The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, directing the concerned authority to shift Lavlu from condemned cell to a general prison immediately. All the Trial courts and tribunals of Bangladesh are instructed to follow specific procedures before pronouncing a judgment. This includes setting a separate date for hearing on sentencing the accused, considering aggravating and mitigating factors like social background, age, crime record, financial status, etc., as indicated in the Appellate Division’s majority judgment in Ataur Mridha vs. State, 73 DLR (AD) (2021)-298. The court should carefully balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances, taking into account the nature of the offense, the offender’s age and character, circumstances of its commission, the impact on individuals or society, whether the offender is habitual, casual, or professional, the effect of punishment on the offender, trial delays, the mental agony suffered by the offender during the prolonged trial, and the potential for correction and reformation. Following these measures, the trial judge will then pronounce the judgment.