In the afternoon session - following the Chowdhury trial first witness cross examination - the defence lawyer Mizanul Islam continued his cross examination of the investigation officer, Mr Helal Uddin n the trial of Sayedee.
The defence lawyer replied that since the prosecution has exhibited this document so they must have exhibited it for some purpose and it his his right to cross examine him on that.
Justice Anwarul Haque also said that. Mr. Azam had no relevancy here, and the defence lawyer said that if this was the case, the Tribunal should have stopped the prosecution exhibiting the video at the time of examination in Chief of of the investigation officer
Defence: From where you have collected the Material exhibit no-14 (report of Indian News Review)?Justice Jahir asked the defence lawyer why he wanted to pose questions about Gholam Azam when they had no relation with Mr. Sayedee.
Witness: I’ve collected it from the Prosecution office by sending them an application on 3-3-2011
Defence: From where did the Prosecution Office collect the content of the material exhibit, do you have any idea about that?
Witness: No.
Defence: Do you know, which Television Channel has telecasted the report?
Witness: No.
Defence: Do you know who the cameraman was?
Witness: No.
Defence: Have you ever tried to contact with the victims whose faces have been shown here in the report?
Witness: No.
Defence: That movie file contains several files titled- Diary on Bangladesh, Bangladesh in Turmoil, Holocaust in Bangladesh, Bangladesh News, Voice of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Revisited, NBC News, Diary on Bangladesh-3, Indian News Review and Bangladesh News-1. Now do you know- who has amalgamated all those files in a single CD?
Witness: No.
Defence: Do you know the places of the incidents which have been mentioned in the CD?
Witness: No.
Defence: Do you know the place of the Refugee camp, as has been shown in the CD?
Witness: I don’t know the actual place, but I just can say that, it is located at India.
Defence: Was any single incident which has been mentioned in the CD against the accused Sayedee?
Witness: No.
Defence: You have produced the CD to make an emotional environment in the Tribunal.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Material Exhibit-15 is the CD which has been made by ATN Bangla as titled “Ekattorer Ghotokera- Ke kothay?” You didn’t seize the CD through the seizure list.
Witness: I didn’t seize the CD by seizure list, but I have got the CD by sending an application to the ATN Bangla authority. I sent the application on 9-1-2011 and received the CD on 3-4-2011. Newsroom Head J. E. Mamun has sent the CD.
Defence: Whether you have made him a witness.
Witness: No.
Defence: This CD is a compilation of 24 segments which has been telecasted on 24 days.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: It has been telecasted as part of News of ATN Bangla.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: There was several reporter, presenter and cameraperson for several segments.
Witness: I can’t answer it exactly.
Defence: Do you know the dates of telecasting the reports?
Witness: No.
Defence: What is the year of telecast?
Witness: 2008
Defence: The first segment contains the interview of A.S.M. Shamsul Arefin. Did you investigate him?
Witness: No.
Defence: You have presented the matter of Mr. Golam Azam here in the segment-1 for creating an emotional environment.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Do you have any information whether Mr. Syedee has met Golam Azam or Mr. Golam has went to Pirojpur to meet Mr. Sayedee at 1971?
Witness: No.
During the questions on Gholam Azam there was a short interchange between the tribunal and the defence.
The defence lawyer replied that since the prosecution has exhibited this document so they must have exhibited it for some purpose and it his his right to cross examine him on that.
Justice Anwarul Haque also said that. Mr. Azam had no relevancy here, and the defence lawyer said that if this was the case, the Tribunal should have stopped the prosecution exhibiting the video at the time of examination in Chief of of the investigation officer
Defence: Do you have any information whether Mr. Syedee has visited Dhaka in 1971?
Witness: No.
Defence: Do you have any information whether the accused has visited London or Pakistan in 1971 or 1972?
Witness: No.
Defence: Have you collected the report of New York Times of 30th July, 1971?
Witness: No. I’ve collected the newspaper of 31st July, 1971.
Defence: Do you have any information whether Mr. Syedee met Tikka Khan, General Niyaji or Governor M A Malek?
Witness: No.
Defence: the 2nd segment mentioned some words about Mawlana AKM Yousuf? Whether the accused was involved with him anyway, do you have information?
Witness: No.
Defence: The 2nd segment involves some words about Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury. Whether there is any involvement in between the accused and the following person?
Witness: No.
Defence: There is no relevancy between the statements about Mawlana Motiur Rahman Nizami with this case.
Witness: Yes there is no relevancy.
Defence: I would like to mention the names and the segments of the other people mentioned in the report- Ashraf Hosen (5th Segment), Mr. Kamrujjaman (6th Segment), Chowdhury Moinuddin (7th Segment), 8th segment give a detail about the general tortures, Mr. Ali Ahsan Mujahid (9th Segment), Mawlana Abdus Sobhan (10th Segment), ATM Azad (11th Segment), Abdul Quader Mollah (13th Segment), Mr. Ainuddin (14th Segment), ABM Khaled Mojumdar (15th Segment), Md. Mir Quashem(16th Segment), Md. Alauddin Shikdar (17th Segment), MA Hannan(18th Segment), Abul Kalam Azad (19th Segment), Abdul Alim(20th Segment), Abdul Khalek Mondol and Riayasat Ali (21st Segment), Md Abdullah (22nd Segment), Mawlana Md. Habibur Rahman (23rd Segment).
You have presented all these names with a bad intention in your mind to make a gloomy environment.
Witness: Not True.
Defence: The last segment involves statements about Engineer Abdul Jobbar. Is it relevant?
Witness: No.
Defence: You have presented this part to create a gloomy environment in the Tribunal.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Whether you have made any investigation report about the killing of Gonopoti Haldar?
Witness: No. I’ve investigated but didn’t make any report.
Defence: You have presented this part for creating a gloomy environment in the Tribunal.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: You don’t have any report about the places of the occurrences involving with the people enlisted in the serial no- 2-24?
Witness: I don’t have any record about it.
Defence: Have you found any information whether those enlisted people went Pirojpur to met Delwar Hossain Syedee?
Witness: No. I don’t have.
Defence: The 12th Segment relates some statements about accused Delwar Hossain Syedee. Have you investigated the persons whose names have been mentioned there at that part?
Witness: No.
Defence: Did you collect the raw footage of the interviewee of this part.
Witness: No. I don’t know whether there might be any other thing except the transmission.
Defence: Do you know who the editor of this part was?
Witness: No
No comments:
Post a Comment