In a landmark ruling on the widely discussed Nusrat Jahan Rafi murder case, the High Court has ordered the removal of a lower court judge from handling criminal trials, stating that the original judgment failed to reflect proper judicial reasoning.

The decision came while delivering the verdict on the death reference and appeals related to the 2019 murder case. The High Court bench observed that the trial court’s decision to sentence 16 defendants to death was not adequately supported by proper judicial assessment.

After reviewing the evidence and appeals, the court upheld the death sentences of two convicts—former madrasa principal Siraj Ud Doula and Shahadat Hossain Shamim. Four others received life imprisonment, while ten defendants were acquitted.

The bench also directed authorities to withdraw former tribunal judge Mamunur Rashid from conducting criminal trials, citing concerns over the exercise of judicial discretion in the original proceedings.

Case Background

Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a student of Sonagazi Islamia Fazil Madrasa in Feni, died in April 2019 after being set on fire. The killing sparked nationwide outrage and drew international attention.

The incident followed allegations of sexual harassment against then-principal Siraj Ud Doula. Prosecutors argued that the murder was planned by individuals seeking to silence Nusrat after she filed a complaint against the principal.

A special tribunal in Feni handed down death sentences to 16 people in October 2019. The verdict was later automatically reviewed by the High Court, while the convicted individuals also filed appeals challenging the ruling.

Why the Verdict Matters

Legal analysts say the High Court’s decision is significant not only because it revisited one of Bangladesh’s most high-profile murder cases, but also because it addressed concerns about judicial standards and evidentiary evaluation in capital punishment cases.

The ruling reshapes the outcome of the original verdict, reducing the number of death sentences from 16 to 2 and highlighting the judiciary’s role in reviewing lower court decisions involving the most severe punishments