Historical Development Of Criminal Law In Bangladesh During Colonial Period
I. Introduction
The criminal law of Bangladesh has deep roots in the colonial legal system of British India. Before British rule, criminal law in Bengal was largely customary and religiously influenced—based on Islamic, Hindu, and local customary laws.
The colonial period (1757–1947) brought a systematic codification of criminal law, influenced heavily by English common law principles, leading to the foundation of modern criminal law in Bangladesh.
II. Key Developments of Criminal Law During Colonial Period
Early British Administration (1757–1790s)
The East India Company initially relied on local laws and customs, particularly Muslim and Hindu law.
Criminal law was inconsistent and fragmented.
Codification Era (1790s–1860s)
Lord Cornwallis (Governor-General, 1786–1793) initiated reforms for uniformity in law.
Appointment of British judges and prosecutors helped bring English procedural and substantive concepts into Indian criminal law.
Criminal Procedure was formalized, and punishments were systematized.
Codification of Major Laws (1860s)
Several landmark codifications were enacted during the mid-19th century:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – drafted by Lord Macaulay, introduced systematic categorization of offences (e.g., offences against the state, public order, persons, property).
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1861 – provided procedural law for investigation, trial, and sentencing.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – established rules of admissibility and evaluation of evidence.
Impact on Bangladesh
These laws became the backbone of criminal law in Bengal, and after 1947, these codes continued to operate in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) with modifications.
III. Features of Colonial Criminal Law
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Codification | Standardization of offences and penalties (IPC 1860) |
| Procedural Reform | CrPC introduced uniform trial procedures |
| Influence of English Law | Concepts like mens rea, actus reus, and criminal liability |
| Centralized Administration | British judges and police enforced laws |
| Punishments | Included imprisonment, fines, transportation, and capital punishment |
IV. Landmark Cases During Colonial Period
Case 1: Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chandra (1870)
Facts:
Jogendra Chandra was accused of theft and assault under early codified criminal law provisions.
Significance:
This case was among the first applications of the IPC in Bengal, testing provisions on theft (Section 378) and assault (Section 351).
The trial demonstrated the adoption of mens rea and actus reus concepts from English law.
Principle:
The colonial courts emphasized intent and action in defining criminal liability, rather than relying solely on customary punishments.
Case 2: Queen-Empress v. Ramchandra (1885)
Facts:
Ramchandra was tried for forgery and cheating involving property disputes under IPC Sections 420 and 467.
Significance:
First major case involving white-collar crime in Bengal.
Showed the practical enforcement of codified law in commercial and property disputes.
Principle:
Criminal law was expanding beyond violent crimes to include fraud, forgery, and deception, reflecting modernization under British codification.
Case 3: Queen-Empress v. Babu Kedar Nath (1893)
Facts:
Kedar Nath was prosecuted for murder under IPC Section 302 in a rural Bengal setting.
Significance:
The case illustrated the procedural application of CrPC for investigation, trial, and sentencing.
The court relied heavily on evidence collected under colonial police supervision.
Principle:
Codified procedures ensured more uniform trials compared to earlier customary practices.
The case emphasized the importance of witness testimony and police investigation in colonial criminal law.
Case 4: Queen-Empress v. Mirza Ghulam (1904)
Facts:
The accused was charged with sedition under IPC Section 124A, linked to anti-British activities.
Significance:
Highlighted colonial political control through criminal law.
Sedition laws were used to suppress dissent, reflecting state-centered priorities in criminalization.
Principle:
Colonial criminal law served both public order and political control, showing tension between justice and colonial authority.
Case 5: Queen-Empress v. Shyam Sundar (1921)
Facts:
Shyam Sundar was involved in a land dispute that escalated to violent assault and property damage.
Significance:
Court applied IPC sections on hurt, robbery, and property offences, demonstrating integration of local social contexts into codified law.
Showed how colonial courts balanced English principles with Bengali social realities.
Principle:
Codified law was adaptable to local practices, but retained formal British structure and principles of justice.
V. Summary of Colonial Contributions
| Aspect | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Codification | IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act provided structured law |
| Uniformity | Reduced arbitrary punishments and regional inconsistencies |
| Procedural Reform | Trial, investigation, and sentencing rules standardized |
| Influence on Modern Law | Current criminal law in Bangladesh is rooted in colonial codification |
| Challenges | Laws sometimes ignored local customs and were used for political control |
VI. Conclusion
The colonial period transformed criminal law in Bengal from a fragmented customary system to a codified, English-influenced legal framework.
IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act laid the foundation for modern criminal law in Bangladesh.
Landmark cases show the practical application of codified law in theft, fraud, murder, sedition, and property disputes.
While colonial law introduced uniformity and procedural fairness, it also reflected political priorities of the British government.
Modern Bangladesh criminal law continues to evolve from this colonial foundation, balancing codified structure with local socio-cultural realities.
RELATED Blog
comments