Thursday, July 5, 2012

13 May 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 7

Following the application relating to Golam Azam, the tribunal then moved to the Sayedee case and the defense lawyer, Mizanul Islam continued with his cross examination of the Investigation officer in the Sayedee case
Defence: Did you analyse the interview of Advocate Ali Haider Khan which was shown in the movie file “Ekusher chokh”?  
Witness: Yes, I have interrogated Advocate Ali Haider Khan and also analysed this programme.  
Defence: Would you please tell us the date when interview of Advocate Ali Haider Khan was taken?  
Witness: I do not know.  
Defence: He is a lawyer of Bangladesh Supreme court and it is very near to this Old High Court Building.  
Witness: Supreme Court is very near to Old High Court Building but whether he is a member of Supreme Court or not, I do not know.  
Defence: You have submitted an application that it is not possible to produce him before the tribunal. That is the reason you hiding truth knowing facts.  
Witness: It is not true. 
Sahidur Rahman (prosecution): This application is submitted by us not by the Investigation Officer and so he should not be questioned?

Justice Nizamul: Prosecution has submitted this application on the basis of report of the Investigation Officer. So question is allowed.
Defence: Did you analyse the interview of Mr. Alhaz Misbaur Rahman Chowdhury which was shown at the movie file “Ekusher chokh”?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: In his interview he said, he was going to publish a report against Delwer Hossain Sayedee. Did you see this report?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: In his interview he said that, two Alem (religious personality) was tortured by Delwar Hossain Sayedee. Did you collect information regarding this?  
Witness: no.  
Defence: At present he is the member of regulating body of Islamic foundation. He got this post after this government coming into power.  
Witness: I do not know.  
Defence: He is member of Islamic student association. Did you collect information in this regard?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: Mr Mizbaur Rahman is a person who is against Jamaat. That is the reason you intentionally presented his interview with this movie file.  
Witness: It is not true.  
Defence: Did you collect any information about whether S.I Azim Hawlader seized any evidence during investigation?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: Why you did not do that?  
Witness: Because he was not in charge that time.  
Defence: When did he resign?  
Witness: He was in charge from 18.08.2009 to 29. 01. 2010.  
Defence: How many statement of witness was taken by him?  
Witness: I do not know.  
Defence: Who was the next Investigation Officer  
Witness: S.I Nur Muhammad.  
Defence: How long he was in charge?  
Witness: He was in charge from 5.02.10 to 3.07.10.  
Defence: Basically you were not able to collect any evidence against Manik Poshari. That is the reason you did not include S.I Azim and Nur Muhammad as witnesses.  
Witness: It is not true.  
Defence: In this movie file, there was a speech of Mr. Saydee, in which place he delivered this speech? Did want to investigate it?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: Have you visited the shop of Madon saha?  
Witness: Yes.  
Mizanul islam: Three sides of the shop of Madon saha is wall without front side. Is that correct? 
Witness: No, two sides are wall, back side is constructed with wood and tin and front side is open.  
Then the Investigation Officer wanted to see the picture of Madon Saha’s shop.

Then both the prosecution and the defence lawyers started arguing with each other. Then Justice Nizamul Haq said “Both sides should be quiet please. One cannot be other than speechless when seeing two senior counsels fighting”

Defence: You (Haider Ali) cannot say that, I am not allowed to ask this question now because this question was not raised in chief examination. I have the right to ask this question as the evidence has been exhibited and these are used as evidence against me. I have jurisdiction to ask every question which has been exhibited against me.
Witness: There are two pillars on two sides not 3 sides. 
Mizanul islam: My lord, he (prosecutor Haider Ali) has no right to prompt the witness.

Jusstice Zaheer: Let me be clear with the question, you asked him whether there are 3 walls or not and in replying his answer he said not three but 2 wall on both sides.

Haider Ali: I have objection upon this point because he have said after that there are not 2 wall rather 2 pillars. Therefore if first part of this question is recorded then 2nd part will also be recorded.

Defence: Second part will not be recorded as this answer was given by the prosecution. And first answer is taken and recorded also.

Haider Ali: My lord, picture is before us. We all are seeing this picture. Therefore, later part should also be taken in record if first part is taken.

Justice Zaheer: Learned prosecution, our opinion will be formed at the time of judgement. Now we will record only the statement of the investigation officer

Justice Nizam: But that second answer was guided by the prosecution according to the defence.

Haider ali: Defence have asked this question very cleverly.

Defence: And you prompt the witness and also establish this answer by way of screaming.

Justice Nizam: Okay, then it will be recorded as “later with the objection of prosecution the Investigation Officer answered that there are 2 pillars on both sides and others are made of tin and wood”

Defence: My lord, it is not correct to record it as “prosecution objection”? They told and guided investigation officer to answer like this way. My lord, please remove the whole question and answer.

Justice Nizam: No it is not possible, the answer is recorded. Time is over, court is adjourned till tomorrow.

No comments:

Post a Comment