The High Court on Monday affirmed the capital punishment of Hitu Sheikh regarding the widely discussed litigation registered concerning the sexual assault and homicide of eight-year-old Asiya situated in Magura.

A High Court bench featuring Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty alongside Justice KM Rasheduzzaman Raja delivered the ruling.

State-assigned counsel Hafizur Rahman Khan advocated for Hitu whilst Deputy Attorney General Imam Hossain Tarek appeared on behalf of the government.

The HC likewise discharged three additional individuals—Hitu’s spouse Jabeda Begum, aged 40, alongside a pair of sons, namely Sajib Sheikh, aged 20, and Ratul Sheikh, aged 25.

A Magura tribunal on May 17, 2025, imposed the death penalty upon Hitu Sheikh, aged 50, recognized as the principal perpetrator within the lawsuit and the father-in-law of Asiya’s older sister, while exonerating the trio of co-accused.

The minor was violated on March 6, 2025, during a visit to her sister's residence located within Sreepur Upazila of Magura.

She was conveyed out of Magura Sadar Hospital to Faridpur Medical College Hospital and subsequently transferred to Dhaka Medical College Hospital.

When her health condition worsened, she was shifted to the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) on March 8.

The child expired at the facility on March 13 while receiving medical intervention.

Prior to that incident, on March 8, the victim's mother lodged a case at Magura Sadar Police Station invoking the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.

The principal defendant in the action, Hitu, delivered a judicial confession under Section 164 before the court on March 15.

Subsequently, upon conclusion of the probe, law enforcement submitted a charge sheet on April 13.

On April 23, the tribunal formulated charges against Hitu pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act and against the remaining three defendants under alternative provisions of the Penal Code, directing the proceedings to commence.

Following the deposition of 29 prosecution witnesses across a trial spanning merely a brief period, the court pronounced its judgment concerning the matter on May 17 of that corresponding year.