Analysis of Decisions of the Higher Judiciary on Arrest and Detention in Bangladesh recording their confessional statements. Therefore, we find the Magistrate had no idea or acumuen that it was his legal duty to remove the other, inducement and influence of the police completely from the mind of the accused before recording their confession. So therefore, we hold that the confessions made by the accused cannot be considered either against the maker or against their co-accused.” Change in Burden of Proof: Since, in most cases, acts of torture by police are carried out as far as possible without any evidence, it is very difficult to hold the offending police officer accountable due to lack of witnesses. The High Court Division in BLAST vs. Bangladesh observed that if death takes place in police custody or jail, it is difficult for the relation of the victim to prove who caused the death. Therefore, the High Court Division recommended a change in the burden of proof in cases of torture in police custody, by amending the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court Division drew an analogy from its decisions on wife killing cases. In the last couple of years, in wife-killing cases, the higher judiciary of Bangladesh took the position that the burden of proof can be shifted onto the accused husband to prove the circumstances of his wife’s death, if at the time of her death, she was in the custody of the husband.20 20 See, State vs. Md. Shafiqul Islam alias Rafique and another, 43 (1991) DLR (AD) 92; State vs. Khandhker Zillul Bari 57 (2005) DLR(AD) 29; Shahjahan Mizi vs. State,57 (2005) DLR (HCD) 224; Shamsuddin vs State, 45 (1993) DLR (HCD) 587. 35