The hearing started with the continuation of the cross examination by Sayedee’s defence of the investigation officer Helal Uddin
Prosecutor: This document is not exhibited. Defence cannot cross examine on this report of PW 1. According to the rules of Procedure, the cross examining must be confined to the examination in chief that the witness has given and cannot go beyond that.
Chairman: have you submitted this document?
Prosecutor: Yes.
Chairman: Are you relying upon it
Prosecutor: No.
Chairman: Why did you give that? As you have given that document they have right to cross examine on it.
Judge Zahir Ahmed: don’t you want to get benefit of the document?
HA: No
Chairman: We shall write on that document that the prosecution do not want to get the benefit on that doc.
Prosecutor: Ok, you can.
Judge Anwarul Haq: You can take back that document now. If it remains in our hand we may consider that.
Prosecutor: Ok. We are taking back that document as not pressed. We are also not pressing Peoples Inquiry Commission’s Report.
Chairman: Ok. Take it back.
Defence: I have to say something. The prosecution has submitted those documents after they have scrutinized them. The investigation officer has given the documents to the Chief prosecutor who has scrutinized that doc. On the basis of those documents the formal Charge is submitted. The Tribunal has then framed charge on those documents. All the witnesses in fact have given their statements. Investigation officer has given his examination in chief. Prosecution Case in near to close. In that situation this document cannot be taken back. On the basis of that documents we may discredit the witness.
The essence of section 16 (2) and section 19 of the ICT Act-1973 is that the Chief Prosecutor and the Investigation Officer can submit those documents which they rely on. Once those have been submitted it can be assumed they have relied on them. It has never been said anywhere that questions should not be raised upon a document which they do not wish to rely fully on.
Prosecutor: According to the amended rule 23 and 53 defence cannot cross examine beyond what was said in examination in chief. The Investigation officer did not mention anything about this document in his evidence. This document is not exhibited by any of our witnesses. So why does the defence want to cross-examine on that document?
Chairman: The defense wants to discredit the witness and the investigation process.
Prosecutor: Yes they can, but not in that way.
Justie Zahir: It was your duty to sort out those documents. Why did you supply them? Without scrutiny you have submitted the bulk of the documents.
Defence: the matter has already been decided. You have permitted us to cross examine us on a book which has not been exhibited named ‘Associates of Pakistan Army in 1971 by A.S.M.Samsul Arefin. It is already a decided matter. The investigation officer has submitted the investigation Report. You have relied upon that documents in the charge framing order. This document is relates to statement in the allegation. Prosecutor has relied upon that document. We have already cross examined on that particular document. We have also cross-examined on a website awhich was not exhibited.
Chairman: the Tribunal has every right to restrict your cross examination in certain matters. The question is how much it is relevant and if so to what extent.
Defence: the document indicates that there is no mass grave in Parerhat Union but as per mark II there are two mass graves in Parerhat. That is why we need to cross examine on that document.
Chairman: Yes Mr. Islam you may proceed on.
Prosecution: We have some objections.
Chairman: But cross examination is allowed..
Cross examination continued
Justice Nizamul Huq: The Court is adjourned till 2 P.M.
Defence: The Position as has been located in the Map you have submitted of the graveyards and burial places are situated in the Parerhat Union.There then followed a discussion between the tribunal, the prosecutor Haider Ali and the defence lawyer Mizanul Islam that can be summarized in the following way:
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: This document is not exhibited. Defence cannot cross examine on this report of PW 1. According to the rules of Procedure, the cross examining must be confined to the examination in chief that the witness has given and cannot go beyond that.
Chairman: have you submitted this document?
Prosecutor: Yes.
Chairman: Are you relying upon it
Prosecutor: No.
Chairman: Why did you give that? As you have given that document they have right to cross examine on it.
Judge Zahir Ahmed: don’t you want to get benefit of the document?
HA: No
Chairman: We shall write on that document that the prosecution do not want to get the benefit on that doc.
Prosecutor: Ok, you can.
Judge Anwarul Haq: You can take back that document now. If it remains in our hand we may consider that.
Prosecutor: Ok. We are taking back that document as not pressed. We are also not pressing Peoples Inquiry Commission’s Report.
Chairman: Ok. Take it back.
Defence: I have to say something. The prosecution has submitted those documents after they have scrutinized them. The investigation officer has given the documents to the Chief prosecutor who has scrutinized that doc. On the basis of those documents the formal Charge is submitted. The Tribunal has then framed charge on those documents. All the witnesses in fact have given their statements. Investigation officer has given his examination in chief. Prosecution Case in near to close. In that situation this document cannot be taken back. On the basis of that documents we may discredit the witness.
The essence of section 16 (2) and section 19 of the ICT Act-1973 is that the Chief Prosecutor and the Investigation Officer can submit those documents which they rely on. Once those have been submitted it can be assumed they have relied on them. It has never been said anywhere that questions should not be raised upon a document which they do not wish to rely fully on.
Prosecutor: According to the amended rule 23 and 53 defence cannot cross examine beyond what was said in examination in chief. The Investigation officer did not mention anything about this document in his evidence. This document is not exhibited by any of our witnesses. So why does the defence want to cross-examine on that document?
Chairman: The defense wants to discredit the witness and the investigation process.
Prosecutor: Yes they can, but not in that way.
Justie Zahir: It was your duty to sort out those documents. Why did you supply them? Without scrutiny you have submitted the bulk of the documents.
Defence: the matter has already been decided. You have permitted us to cross examine us on a book which has not been exhibited named ‘Associates of Pakistan Army in 1971 by A.S.M.Samsul Arefin. It is already a decided matter. The investigation officer has submitted the investigation Report. You have relied upon that documents in the charge framing order. This document is relates to statement in the allegation. Prosecutor has relied upon that document. We have already cross examined on that particular document. We have also cross-examined on a website awhich was not exhibited.
Chairman: the Tribunal has every right to restrict your cross examination in certain matters. The question is how much it is relevant and if so to what extent.
Defence: the document indicates that there is no mass grave in Parerhat Union but as per mark II there are two mass graves in Parerhat. That is why we need to cross examine on that document.
Chairman: Yes Mr. Islam you may proceed on.
Prosecution: We have some objections.
Chairman: But cross examination is allowed..
Cross examination continued
Defence: Here, there is one information about Parerhat Union and two photographs of the graveyards of the same Union.
Defence: The above document [memorial] which is signed by Kaji Tofael Hossain does not contain any graveyard of Parerhat Union.
Witness: Yes there is not. [As the memorial has not been produced as the material exhibit; so the statement of the investigation has been counted with the objection from the Prosecution team.]
Defence: Whether the map has been made in your sight?
Witness: Yes. The sketch map and the index have been prepared in my sight by the LGED. The Mark-1 has been prepared by the same personnel of LGED, who have prepared the Mark-2.
Defence: What information have you supplied to LGED to prepare the following Map?
Witness: The name of the place of incident, the photograph of the place of incident, the reference of the case, the name- address and the photographs of the accused.
Defence: What has been contained in the Index No- Ka and Kha of the Sketch Map?
Witness: Nothing has been mentioned in the index map.
Defence: It has not been mentioned here that the map relates to which unions.
Witness: It has been mentioned. Pirojpur Sadar, Zianagar and Bagharpara of Jessore have been mentioned there.
Defence: The photograph which has been mentioned in the serial no- 21 of the index has not been contained in the sketch map.
Witness: Yes, it has not been mentioned in the map.
Defence: Serial No- 18, 19, 11 are not places.
Witness: Serial no- 18 and 19 are not the photographs of the places of incidents; but serial- 11 is the photograph of the place of incident and the house of witness Usha Rani Malakar.
Defence: Whether it has been mentioned in the index that- it is the photograph of the aforesaid witness Usha Rani Malakar?
Witness: No.
Defence: It is not clear whether it is a house or anything else.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: It is not photograph of the internal side of the house of Usha Rani Malakar.
Witness: The fence surrounding the room of the witness is visible here.
Defence: Whether the murdered 14 people of the Parerhat Hindu area were the people of different houses?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether the house of Mahabubul Alam Hawladar, Prosecution Witness is situated at Tengrakhali?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: The photograph mentioned in the serial no-14 states the location of Mahabub as Umedpur.
Witness: Yes. Tengrakhali is located under Umedpur.
Defence: Two places have been mentioned as the houses of Mahabubul Alam Hawladar in the material display-1; but nowhere the name of Umedpur has been mentioned.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether Mahabubul Alam Hawladar has one house?
Witness: No he has two houses.
Defence: Whether another house is a tin shed one?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether the house as has been displayed in the photograph is a dwelling house?
Witness: No. It is an abandoned one.
Defence: When have you captured the photograph of mark-1; serial- 9?
Witness: On 20-8-2010.
Defence: What is the name of the man who is standing in front of a house and being seen in the photograph of mark-1, serial-9?
Witness: Suresh Chondro Mondol.
Defence: The serial-4 and serial-5 are displaying different photographs which have been mentioned as Boleshwor River.
Witness: The serial-4 is displaying the bank of the river whereas display-5 is the place of abduction of Deputy Magistrate Mizanur Rahman from the Pirojpur Sadar Hospital.
Defence: Whether it has been mentioned anywhere that it is the photograph of Pirojpur Sadar Hospital.
Witness: It is not specific.
Defence: Whether it has been mentioned that the last part of the display-4 is the photograph of the bank of Boleshwor River?
Witness: It is not specified.
Defence: You have included the photograph of the accused in this Sketch Map and Index.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: From where have you collected the photograph?
Witness: I have collected it from the internet through my own initiatives.
Defence: You have passed Masters Degree. Right?
Witness: No. I have passed, BSC, BED.
Defence: Whether the forms of Matriculation Exam, Intermediate Exam, BSC Exams ought to be filled up by the students themselves.
Witness: Yes.
Justice Nizamul Huq: The Court is adjourned till 2 P.M.
No comments:
Post a Comment