Tuesday, July 3, 2012

25 Apr 2012: Sayedee IO cross-exam day 1

After passing the order, the tribunal chairman then asked Mizanul Islam to start cross examination and said that he would adjourn it if the defence faces any difficulty.

Mizanul Islam then explained again why he did not want to continue with the cross examination

The tribunal said that this is the first trial in this Tribunal and the case will become an example for the other cases. ‘We do not want to create an example of frequent adjournments,’ he said.

Mizanul Islam said that the tribunal always gave an adjournment to the prosecution He said that in his application he had prayed for four weeks adjournment was now only seeking up to 7th May 2012. As 1st May is holiday, he said, you are adjourning for five days only, i.e. 26, 29, 30 April and 2 and 3 May.

The chairman said that they had other cases fixed the following week, but the trivunal does not have any case tomorrow.

The defence lawyers said that adjournment should be allowed for ends of justice, that there is no legal requirement that you have to sit in tribunal on each and every day.

The chairman said that if they adjourn, then the press will report that we are sitting idle.

Miszanul Islam responded by saying that this was not relevant. ‘The prosecution yesterday gave names of 13 books. I must read those books before I start cross examination of the IO,’ he said.

One judge said, you do not need to read these books. You can just ask question to the investigation officer whether Sayedee’s name is in the book or not. He will reply that it is not there. These books are not relevant.

Razak then said that if these books are not relevant then why is the prosecution is relying upon them. He also asked why did the tribunal not object to the prosecution mentioning these books?

The chairman said that you start the cross examination after lunch and we can discuss about the adjournment tomorrow.

Islam said, that he can start the cross-examination after recess, but it should be adjourned tomorrow. ‘If we keep coming every day then we will not be able to utilise theat times to prepare ourselves,’ he said.

Adjournment for lunch

After lunch, the tribunal passed the following order (summary)
With regard to the prayer for adjournment the learned counsel appearing for the defence Mr. Mizanul Islam submitted that they have to prepare before cross examination of this witness and if sufficient time is not given then they will be highly prejudiced.
We have perused the application for adjournment and given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the counsels. We have already observed that for fair trial some air should be given to both sides so that they can take breath and do justice to their clients. Now we have only four cases in this tribunal since we have transferred the other cases to another tribunal. By sitting idle we cannot waste our time. Normally in a case when examination in chief is complete question for time for cross examination does not arise. We want to say here that the counsels who appears for their clients should be ready for all times. This witness gave examination in chief for nine days. Excepting yesterday, the counsels for the accused were present on all other days. They took notes and certified copies of the depositions every day. We expected that the defence counsels can start cross examination after completion of the examination in chief. We have repeatedly told that if genuinely they need time then we will accommodate that. In this case there are many other points of cross examination. The cross examination regarding new documents can be done at a later stage. We do not find reason for adjournment for cross examination. During proceeding if it is seen that the defence counsel may need time then we may adjourn. But not for today. Today the Accused may start cross examination. When they face difficulty then we may give time. With this observation the prayer for adjournment is rejected. 
Cross-examination by the defence counsel of the investigation officer Helal Uddin started.

Defence: On 31.8.2009 Mahbubul Alam lodged a case against Mr. Sayedee and 3 others in Pirojpur Court. Is that true?  
Witness: Yes. It is true.  
Defence: This case was filed under section 436, 380, 427, 302/34 of Penal code-1860 and Police station case no .was 8.9.2009. Sub-Inspector Abdul Hakim khan of Zianagar thana was ordered to investigate this case. Is that true?  
Witness: Yes.  
Defence: In this case, the name of the accused was Md. Delwar Hossain Sayedee. The name “Deilla or dilu” was not mentioned here. Is that true?  
Witness: Yes.  
Defence: In this case, was there any description of incidents other than the incident 2nd June 1971? 
Witness: Yes, there were described other incidents also other than the 2nd June 1971 but the date of other incidents was not mentioned.  
Defence: In this case, he was alleged to have looted gold and money from the house of Mahbubul Alam, killing Bishabali, looting and setting on fire 25 houses at Umedpur, looting and setting the house of Manik poshari on fire and looting the house of Selim khan.  
Witness: Yes.  
Defence: On 12. 8. 2009, Manik Poshari lodged a case against Delwer Hossain Sayeede and 4 others in Pirojpur court. This case was filed under section 302, 380, 436, 34 of Penal code-1860 and Police station case no. was 17. 8. 2009. Is it true?  
Witness: Yes.  
Defence: Would you please tell us to whom the investigation power has been given?  
Witness: Investigation power has been given to the Sub Inspector Aziz Howalader.  
Defence: In this case the name of the accused was Md. Delwar Hossain Saydee. The name “Deilla or dilu” was not mentioned here. Is that true?  
Witness: Yes.  
Defence: In this case, he was alleged to have killed Ibrahim kutti and adduction of Mafiz. Is it true?  
Witness: Yes.  
Defence: Deposition no.6 and 7 has been produced before the Tribunal by you. Did you inspect these cases during the investigation?  
Witness: Yes 
Defence: Had police report been submitted before completing Investigation?  
Witness: I do not know.  
Defence: Did you take information whether any case is pending against Delwar Hossian Sayedee in any court in Bangladesh?  
Witness: Yes, I have sent a letter to all concerned authority to find out whether any case is under investigation or under trial against Delwar hossain Sayedee or not.  
Defence: Would you please tell us regarding the report of serial no. 6 and 7?  
Witness: Case of Manik Poshari was under investigation and Mahbubul Alam case has been transferred to this Tribunal and now this case is under investigation of this Tribunal.
The investigation report which I have produced before the Tribunal described the offence of looting gold and money from the house of Mahbubul Alam, killing Bishabali, looting and setting on fire 25 houses at Umedpur, looting and setting the house of Manik poshari on fire and looting the house of Selim khan, killing of Ibrahim Kutti, abduction and torture of Mafiz.  
Defence: My lord, I have no objection in your observation but for ends of justice there should have adjournment. Therefore, before 7th may we did not want to start our cross examination. 
Justice Nassim: Please come tomorrow. And if you feel that you are prejudiced then you can come before us by filing an application.

And Mr Razzak you may please come on Sunday.

Mr. Razzak: No my lord Sunday is not possible, and there is an application which I have already submitted.

Justice Nassim: Okay, I am passing an Order.

Order given by Justice Nassim (summary)

Accused Matiur Rahman Nizami was transferred from Dhaka central jail to Kashimpur-2 but documents has not been served yet. Upon hearing Abdur Razzak, this Order would be passed upon the Dhaka central jail and binding for all the jail authority, at the same time direct Kashimpur jail authority to allow the set of documents.

Then the court was adjourned.

No comments:

Post a Comment