A Munshiganj court on Monday sentenced a man to life imprisonment for repeatedly raping his 13-year-old daughter in 2015, observing that his crime deserved the death penalty but the law in force at the time did not permit it.
Judge Tehsin Iftekhar of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal delivered the verdict against Ebadat Mir, 40, of Louhajang upazila.
The court also fined him 100,000 taka, with an additional year of rigorous imprisonment if he fails to pay.
The fine, once recovered, must be paid to the victim as compensation. The court authorised recovery from the convict's property if necessary.
Ebadat, a van driver at the time of the offence, stood silently in the dock as the verdict was announced around noon.
Asked whether he regretted his actions, he replied: "I am the victim of a conspiracy."
No family members were seen in court. His lawyer, Mohammad Sharif Khan, said the verdict would be appealed.
In its observations, the court described the relationship between a father and daughter as one of the most sacred bonds in human life.
"When the father himself becomes the attacker, the child's own home becomes a place of abuse," the judge observed.
"The disgrace in such crimes belongs solely to the perpetrator, not the victim."
The court said parental authority offered no immunity from prosecution. Instead, abusing that authority made the offence more serious.
The prosecution established that Ebadat repeatedly sexually assaulted his daughter while her mother worked at a garment factory in Savar.
The girl lived with her father and younger brother at their family home in Louhajang.
In her testimony, she described assaults beginning approximately 20 to 25 days before the incident that led to her father's arrest.
She said her father had assaulted her on multiple occasions while they were alone at home.
On January 19, 2015, neighbours became suspicious after finding the house's doors and windows closed in the afternoon.
Four eyewitnesses testified that they looked through gaps in the fencing before forcing their way inside.
They found the father and daughter in a state of undress.
One witness said he had been fishing in a nearby pond when he noticed a crowd gathering outside the house and went to investigate.
The girl told the court that neighbours entered the room while her father was attempting to assault her.
She also testified that people beat both her and her father after discovering them.
Her younger brother described another occasion when he returned home from school, found the main section of the house locked from outside and entered after unlocking it.
He found his father and sister lying on opposite sides of a bed, while the room's rear door was locked from inside.
The prosecution presented seven witnesses, including the victim, neighbours and the investigating officer.
The court found the girl's testimony credible and supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts.
Citing higher court precedents, Judge Iftekhar said reliable testimony from a sexual assault survivor could, on its own, justify a conviction.
The court rejected the defence's claim that Ebadat had been falsely implicated because of a personal dispute with the complainant.
It also observed that consent was legally irrelevant because the victim was under 16 at the time.
The judge said the offence was sufficiently grave to merit capital punishment.
But the crime occurred in 2015, when Section 9(1) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act prescribed life imprisonment with hard labour and a fine as the maximum punishment.
The death penalty for rape was introduced through a 2020 amendment.
Article 35(1) of the Constitution prohibits imposing a punishment more severe than the penalty prescribed when an offence was committed.
The court therefore ruled that it had no legal authority to sentence Ebadat to death.
Instead, it imposed life imprisonment with hard labour and the financial penalty.
Any period Ebadat has already spent in custody will be deducted from his sentence.
He was sent to prison following the verdict.
The judgment can be appealed before the High Court Division within 60 days.
The court also ordered strict protection of the victim's identity under Section 14 of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.
Her name, address, photograph or any information capable of identifying her cannot be published.
The case dates to January 19, 2015, when neighbours apprehended Ebadat after discovering the abuse and handed him over to police.
A case was filed at Louhajang Police Station the same day.
Police submitted a charge sheet on March 31, 2015, under Section 9(1) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000.
Charges were framed on July 28 that year.
The investigating officer told the court that he had examined the First Information Report, visited the scene, prepared a sketch map and attempted to collect physical evidence.
He recorded witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and questioned the accused before producing him in court.
The victim's statement was also recorded under Section 161, while arrangements were made for her judicial statement under Section 22 of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.
—