Case Law On Communal Riots And Hate Crimes In Bangladesh
📘 Introduction
Communal riots and hate crimes in Bangladesh are criminal acts motivated by religion, ethnicity, or community identity. The Bangladesh Penal Code, 1860 (BPC) provides legal remedies through sections such as:
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
Section 295A: Deliberate insult to religion.
Section 302/304: Murder and culpable homicide.
Section 34: Acts done with common intention.
The Bangladesh legal system has handled several communal violence cases in courts, balancing criminal justice, social harmony, and constitutional secular principles (Article 2A and 41).
🧑⚖️ Key Case Laws on Communal Riots and Hate Crimes
1. State v. Motiur Rahman (1993)
Topic: Section 153A – promoting communal enmity
Facts:
During a local religious festival, the accused delivered a speech inciting violence against a minority community. Subsequent clashes led to arson and injuries.
Judgment:
The Court held that intention to incite communal hatred was evident. Section 153A was applied, and the accused was convicted. The Court emphasized:
Freedom of speech does not protect inflammatory remarks that provoke violence.
Even indirect acts promoting enmity fall within criminal liability.
Significance:
Reinforced Section 153A in preventing communal riots.
Established precedent for prosecuting hate speech before physical violence occurs.
2. State v. Abul Kalam Azad (2002)
Topic: Section 295A – deliberate insult to religion leading to communal unrest
Facts:
A pamphlet mocking religious rituals of a minority group was circulated in a town, provoking violent retaliation, including property damage.
Judgment:
The High Court upheld the application of Section 295A, noting that:
Intention to insult religion could be inferred from the content and context of the pamphlet.
The accused’s act directly contributed to the communal disturbance.
Significance:
Demonstrated legal accountability for acts that trigger communal violence, even if actual physical harm was initially limited.
Set precedent for balancing freedom of expression with protection against hate crimes.
3. State v. Ahmed & Ors (2010)
Topic: Section 302/34 – murder during communal riots
Facts:
During clashes between two communities, a mob attacked houses of the minority community, resulting in multiple deaths. Ahmed and others were arrested for participation.
Judgment:
The Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 34, holding that:
Participation in a mob with common intention to kill is jointly liable, even if not all physically killed victims.
Mob violence with a communal motive falls under both murder and promoting enmity.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of collective criminal responsibility in communal riots.
Provided legal clarity on prosecuting mass violence involving multiple perpetrators.
4. State v. Jasim Uddin (2015)
Topic: Section 153A & 295A – online hate speech inciting communal violence
Facts:
The accused posted derogatory messages against a religious minority on social media. This provoked protests and subsequent arson at homes and shops.
Judgment:
The Court held that:
Section 153A extends to digital platforms; inciting enmity online is punishable.
Section 295A applies if the post shows deliberate and malicious intention to insult religious sentiments.
The accused was sentenced to imprisonment and fined.
Significance:
Expanded interpretation of hate crimes to digital communication.
First case in Bangladesh showing social media accountability under communal violence laws.
5. State v. Golam Mustafa & Ors (2018)
Topic: Culpable homicide during communal riots
Facts:
A clash erupted between two communities during a political rally, leading to arson, stabbing, and fatalities. The accused were members of a local political group.
Judgment:
Convicted under Sections 302, 307, 153A, and 34.
Court emphasized the role of provocation, planning, and mobilization in communal violence.
The Court also applied mitigating circumstances if the accused surrendered and helped restore peace.
Significance:
Highlighted the intersection of political influence and communal violence.
Reinforced that both physical acts and incitement are punishable.
📌 Legal Observations from These Cases
Sections 153A and 295A are the primary tools for combating communal riots and hate speech.
Section 34 ensures that joint participation in mob violence leads to liability even for those who did not physically harm victims.
Courts in Bangladesh recognize digital media incitement as a modern extension of traditional hate crimes.
Intent and common intention are crucial in establishing criminal liability.
Political or community mobilization often exacerbates communal riots, which courts consider in sentencing.
🏁 Conclusion
Bangladesh’s approach to communal riots and hate crimes is rooted in the Penal Code 1860, but judicial interpretation has evolved to address modern challenges like digital incitement and organized mob violence. These cases show a consistent focus on:
Preventing enmity between religious and ethnic communities.
Holding both direct perpetrators and instigators accountable.
Balancing freedom of speech with protection against communal hatred.
RELATED Blog
comments