After dealing with the application for recall of witnesses, the cross examination of the investigation officer by the defence lawyer, Mizanul Islam continued from the previous day
The chairman said that the lawyer should restrict himself to the question whether the accused was hiding until 1985 and not question about the Saudi Arabia part.
The defence lawyer said that the investigation officer had relied upon this book and this book claims that the accused was hiding to Saudi Arabia and returned in 1986 and that he should be able to ask question on this.
The chairman said that he would not allow this.
Then in relation to the newsreport from the Daily Janakantha, which mentioned that Sayedee had a connection with Bin Laden, the lawyer asked whether the investigation officer investigated into this matter?
The chairman asked what was the relevance of the Bin Laden connection with this case?
The defence lawyer stated that the investigation officer had admitted this false news to discredit his client and that he had a right to challenge this. He said that if the chairman agreed that they would not use this part of news report against Sayedee then they will not ask any question on this. The chairman agreed.
The court was adjourned till the afternoon
Defence: You have submitted the Newspaper Jonokontho of 5th March, 2001 without examining that, just to amplify the volume of the charges against the accused Delwar Hossain Sayedee.During proceedings there were two questions that were stopped by the chairman. One concerned a question about the book “Associates of Pakistan Army 1971” Samsul Arefin which contains the information that “He [Sayedee] left Bangladesh after liberation and went back to Saudi Arabia and He come back in 1985 and started Islami Jalsa” and he was asked 'Have you investigated when he fled to Saudi Arabia and when he returned?'
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Did you question the reporter of the highlighted report from the following newspaper?
Witness: No.
Defence: Did you question Mr. Boyej Uddin and Amjad Hossain Gaji who was the former Chairman of Bagherha, whose names were mentioned in that following report?
Witness: I’ve investigated about those two persons. I came to know that there was no one named Boyej Uddin, but there was someone named Royaj Uddin, he has died and Amjad Hossain Gaji has also died.
Defence: Did you question any family members of Mr. Royej Uddin?
Witness: No.
Defence: When did you submitt the investigation report?
Witness: On 30-5-2011.
Defence: But Amjad Hossain Gaji died after 6 months after the submission of the investigation report.
Witness: [became bewildered and started flipping off the pages of his voluminous books and documents to find out the date.] Royej Uddin Poshari has died; but I’ve issued notice to Amjad Hossain Gaji; but he didn’t maintain any contact; afterwards I came to know, he has died.
Defence: Are you able to produce a copy of that notice before the tribunal?
Witness: I’ve sent a notice to the Police Station to produce the witness.
Defence: What did the Police Station reply?
Witness: The reply of the aforesaid notice has not been included in the record.
Defence: My suggestion is that during the investigation Mr. Amjad Hossain Gaji was alive.
Witness: I can not confirm.
Defence: I would like to say during the investigation you have met Amjad Hossain Gaji.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: As he did not agreed to give statements in favour of your view, you didn’t make him the witness.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: As has been stated in the report that Mr. Saydee has concealed himself in the house of Rashid, who was a worker of Collectorate Building. Did you ever investigate where the house actually situates?
Witness: When I went for investigation, I came to know that he has concealed himself in village- Dohakola under the Bagharpara Police Station of Jessore District. I didn’t go to the Collectorate building for investigation.
Defence: Sufia Haidar; daughter of Late Faijur Rahman Ahmed whose name has been mentioned in the report is living in Azimpur of Dhaka District.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether Mr, Jafor Ikbal; son of late Faijur Rahman Ahmed—is living in Dhaka?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether Humayun Ahmed a renowned novelist and another son of late Faijur Rahman Ahmed is also living in Dhaka?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether Ayesha Fayej; wife of late Faijur Rahman Ahmed is also living in Dhaka?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether you have interviewed Mr. Humayun Ahmed and Ms. Ayesha Fayej?
Witness: I have interviewed Ayesha Fayej- but didn’t make her a witness in this case and I didn’t ever interview Humayun Ahmed.
Defence: It has been stated in the following report that the accused has once gone to Parerhat after 1971; did you interviee the reporter whose home he went to.
Witness: No.
Defence: It has been mentioned that the accused has mentioned uncensored and non moderate words in his Waz [religious speech given on a religious meeting] and did hurt the spirit of liberation war, spirit of Bengali nationality etc. Did you question the reporter about this matter?
Witness: No.
Defence: It has been mentioned in the report that the accused will go to Australia right after the Eid [religious festival of Muslims.] for a religious meeting. Did you investigate anything about that?
Witness: No.
Defence: Did you go to the house of Younus Ali [father in law of the accused] situated at the village- Badura which is the adjacent to the village, Parerhat.
Witness: I have seen the house but didn’t enter.
Defence: How many sons and daughter did Younish Munshi have, do you know?
Witness: No.
Defence: Whether you have gone to the house of the accused at village, Southkhali?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Who is staying over in that house?
Witness: I didn’t investigate.
Defence: Did you not investigate anything about why he lived in his father in laws house other than staying in his house of his own village.
Witness: No; I didn’t investigate. I didn’t ask anyone at Southkhali about that, as he was not living at the village- Southkhali.
Defence: Who has taken you to visit the house of the accused?
Witness: Another witness, Mr. Bajlur Rahman.
Defence: It has been stated in the report that he had been empowered to lead a battalion of 300 Razakars. Do you know who were included in that team?
Witness: I know that he has in the position of leadership; but I know nothing about the team members.
Defence: You didn’t find anyone who has been tortured or killed for disagreeing to be the part of the team of Razakar.
Witness: It is not true.
Defence: Please mention few names who have been compelled to join the razakar team.
Witness: I didn’t find the names.
Defence: At the last part of the following report-- there is a mentioning about Dr. Muntasir Mamun. Did you interview him?
Witness: No
The chairman said that the lawyer should restrict himself to the question whether the accused was hiding until 1985 and not question about the Saudi Arabia part.
The defence lawyer said that the investigation officer had relied upon this book and this book claims that the accused was hiding to Saudi Arabia and returned in 1986 and that he should be able to ask question on this.
The chairman said that he would not allow this.
Then in relation to the newsreport from the Daily Janakantha, which mentioned that Sayedee had a connection with Bin Laden, the lawyer asked whether the investigation officer investigated into this matter?
The chairman asked what was the relevance of the Bin Laden connection with this case?
The defence lawyer stated that the investigation officer had admitted this false news to discredit his client and that he had a right to challenge this. He said that if the chairman agreed that they would not use this part of news report against Sayedee then they will not ask any question on this. The chairman agreed.
The court was adjourned till the afternoon
No comments:
Post a Comment