Tuesday, July 3, 2012

8 May Sayedee IO cross exam day 4

After the defense concerns relating to the new rules of procedure were heard, the tribunal chairman called upon the reporter of www.bdnews24.com, Tanim Ahmed concerning the heading of the report of previous day, as well as aspects of the report. The reporter answered that the editor had decided on the heading. Then the Justice replied we read your news on regular basis and we appreciate your style, so be careful about picking up the heading. The reporter accepted this.

Prior to the continuation of the cross examination of the investigation officer, Zahir Ahmed talked to Defence Counsel Mizanul Islam about the two web sites mentioned by the investigation officer. He said that the website contains a huge amount of material and the defence should not ask question on all the materials of those web sites, and that they should restrict themselves to the parts relevant to Pirojpur and that the defence does not need to ask any questions about the atrocities in other areas.

The defence lawyer, Mizanul Islam replied by saying that if they were not relevant why did the tribunal allow the investigation officer to admit them. He said that the should have stopped the prosecution to bring in those irrelevant materials. He said that one of the website contains a list of 310 books. If any of these books contain any information about the Accused then the prosecution could use this during their argument. So I should be allowed to controvert any allegation and materials used against me.

The judge said that there was no scope for the prosecution to rely upon those 310 books. We will only rely upon the books that the prosecution have submitted before this Tribunal. ‘The list of books in the web site is not relevant.’ he said

Islam said that his concern was that since the witness has stated that he found materials against the accused from these web sites during investigation then the prosecution may use any materials in those web site against his client. How can the tribunal stop this? The prosecution may use Rule 19(1) and 19(4) asking the Tribunal to rely on these books in the web sites, he said.

The chairman said that the tribunal would now allow the prosecution to rely on any book not submitted before this tribunal.

Islam then asked if the tribunal had taken any decision about his application yesterday for using a laptop with internet? You should give your decision on that since I am going to ask question on the web sites and I will require Internet.

The chairman said that they haven’t yet taken any decision on that and that the defence may start from the hard materials.

Islam responded by saying that this would limit hicross examination.

The chairman said that until it passed any positive order, the defence should presume the order is in the negative.

Islam then said that before he started that day’s cross-examination, he may need to ask some questions about the liberation war and it leaders but that he has no intention to disrespect them and they are only be asked in the interest of the case.

The defence counsel Mr. Mizanul Islam continued the cross examination of the investigation officer who was in charge of the investigation of Sayedee (following on from this hearing)
Defence: I’ve mentioned the name of a website www.warcriminalsbd.org/list/razakar/dhakadivision. This website provides 2 links to two other 2 websites.  
Witness: Not true 
Defence: Who was the convener of the central peace committee? Does the document provide the name of Mawlana Abdur Rahim?  
Witness: I don’t know whether it is there. I’ve not provided the list.  
Defence: So, would you like to say, that the list of the members of the central peace committee which has been served with the formal charge has not been provided by you?  
Witness: It has been provided in the law that the Chief Prosecutor will submit the formal charge, so here I’ve nothing to say what has been provided with the formal charge. I know what formal charge is but the list has not been provided by me.  
Defence: So, my Lordship, in this whom I can ask my questions about the formal charge? I’ve to ask you to make the points clear?  
Justice Anwarul Huq: He is stating that he knows nothing, but why do you prefer to ask the same question to this man?  
Defence: To whom the question might be asked in that case?  
Justice Anwarul Huq: You might ask the Chief Prosecutor.  
Witness: I’ve not submitted the list with my investigation report.  
Defence: The website provides the name of Mawlana Abdur Rahim as the convener of the Pirojpur district of the Barisal division.  
Witness: I’ve just evaluated the list of the Razakars, but nothing more than that. It provides the name of 957 Razakars in its contents.  
Defence: Who is the President of Pirojpur Peace Committee?  
Witness: Khan Bahadur Syed Mohammad Afjal.  
Defence: Whether the website provides the full list of razakars at this razakars section?  
Witness: No. You have to click it by districts and divisions.  
Defence: From where you have got the information of this website?  
Witness: I’ve got the information at my office laptop on 23/7/2010 at 12:15 P.M. when searching the websites.  
Defence: Have you downloaded the relevant part?  
Witness: Yes. I did it.  
Defence: You know the fact that, it has been launched on 23rd March, 2010; but knowingly you have concealed the fact.  
Witness: Not true.  
Defence: You know the fact that- the website has been launched from America; but you have knowingly concealed the fact.  
Witness: Not true.  
Defence: The facts of the websites are not true, so to conceal the fact, you are acting like you know nothing about the other facts.  
Witness: Not true.  
Defence: The website www.genocideofbangladesh.org has provided 26 links of other websites all of which are relevant to the war of 1971 of Bangladesh.  
Witness: Don’t know specifically.  
Defence: This website has mentioned name of 301 books and articles at its Bangla archive part.  
Witness: I didn’t notice the matter.  
Defence: Which part of the website provides that 60% dwelling houses were being damaged on that following area?  
Witness: www.keanedu/bgsg/welcome.html this link on the website provides the information that Barisal, Jhalkathi, Rajapur, Kawkhali, Shwarupkatji, Pirojpur, Mothbaria and Babuganj are the area where 60% of the dwelling house has been damaged; 47 graveyards were found, 3400 women were raped, 2500 skeleton have been found and 65000 have been killed.  
Defence: Have you downloaded the page? We have not found the page on that site. Till this day the link of the website has not been included in the website ofwww.genocideofbangladesh.org  
Witness: Not true.  
Defence: As you are referring from the website and stating that- 60% dwelling houses have been damaged. Now tell me- whether you have tried to evaluate whether the information as has been provided in the website is correct; by checking the book Genocide in Bangladesh (1972): Kalyan Chowdhury, Orient Longman. PP, (1999-2002). And whether you have collected the book?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: Whether you have collected the information about the number of the dwelling house in the Pirojpur District?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: What is the most densely populated village of Pirojpur, have you gathered any information about that?  
Witness: No.
Defence: How many houses were there in the village of the Prosecution witness-1 Mr. Mahbubul Alam Hawladar; have you gathered any information?  
Witness: No.  
Defence: You have not provided any information- whether any houses in the village the aforesaid Prosecution witness have been destructed.  
Witness: I have provided the information.  
Defence: Whether the house of the Prosecution witness was fully destroyed or partly damaged?  
Witness: It was not fully destroyed but partly damaged.  
The court was adjourned until the afternoon. Islam told the tribunal that it could check the accuracy of the links given by the witness during the recess and make a note. The chairman said that they would check it later on. 
After recess the cross examination continued  
Defence: Village Kawkhali, Sharupkathi, Kathalia, Mathbaria was under the then Pirojpur District. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: This report based on website of Kean University external education programme. In fact, the report of this website has no connectivity with Bangladesh liberation war. Despite having no information of this website, you intentionally produce wrong information before the Tribunal. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: Name of Delwar Hossain Saidee is not mentioned in any place and any incident of this material which you have downloaded from the website. 
Witness: Whether name is mentioned in any place or not, I do not know but his name is not mentioned in any incident. 
Defence: Do you tell us, whether Delwar Hossain Saydee has any complicity with this materials? 
Justice Anwarul Haque: Learned defence you are not allowed to ask whether he any complicity or not. You are allowed to only ask whether Delwar Hossain Sayedee has any involvement with the incident of downloading materials. 
Defence: Okay, then my question is whether there is any information from the website that Mr. Sayedee has committed arson, loot and any other offence? 
Witness: In this report name of any person is not mentioned but rate of offence as per percentage is specified. 
Defence: My question is, whether name of Delwar hossain Saidee is mentioned or not? 
Justice Zaheer: Just tell about specific involvement. 
Then Haider Ali, the prosecutor wanted to say something but Justice Zaheer stopped him and said “It is court of law, not a playground. You sit down and let him (investigation officer) speak, he is a police officer not a lay man 
Witness: No, his name is not mentioned. 
Defence: After the formation of investigation agency, did you call upon any allegation through advertisement? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Mahbubul Alam Hawlader filed allegation against Mr. Sayedee on 20.7.10, my question is why record has been done on 21.07.10? 
Witness: It was recorded on 21 July 2010 as allegation after having in my hand. 
Defence: Who was authorized to maintain complaint register? 
Witness: Inspector Mr. Razzak. 
Defence: How many days he was authorized? 
Witness: I do not know. 
Defence: Is he alive? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: No one is produced as witness of the case? 
Witness: I did not feel any necessity to produce them as witness. 
Defence: When did you meet with Mr. Mahbubul Alam for the first time? 
Witness: 21 July 2010. 
Defence: Did you meet in Dhaka? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: When did you meet with him for the second time? 
Witness: 18. 08. 2010. 
Defence: In which place you meet with him in Pirojpur? 
Witness: At Parerhaat market in Pirojpur. 
Defence: Did you inform at Pirojpur local Thana before going to the Pirojpur 
Witness: Yes, I have informed. 
Defence: Evidence which have been shown in exhibit 2 was brought to you by others or you did you find them yourself? 
Witness: I have seized these from the house of Alamgir Poshari by myself. 
Defence: Did you talk with Alamgir Poshari? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: You did not include him as seizure list witness? 
Witness: No, he is not included seizure list. 
Defence: Age of Alamgir Poshari was noted as per Alamgir Poshari or by you? 
Witness: I have noted it as per his indication. 
Defence: No one of his family member is produced as witness. 
Witness: Yes, No one is produced. 
Defence: No member of Chitholia village was produced as witness. 
Witness: Yes, no member is produced as witness. 
Defence: How many people live in Chitholia Village? 
Witness: I do not know. 
Defence: In 1972 Alamgir was not born, so there is no question of having his house. For the sake of case you have made a story nothing else. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: For the sake of case, you have made a story of seizing evidence. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: He has not been produced so that it would not be proved that he was not born in 1971 and his house was burn on fire. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: Evidence which has been exhibited was attached with the house of Manik Poshari. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: How many houses were there when you seized them? 
Witness: Only one house. 
Defence: Did you take information, how many members are in his family? 
Witness: No 
Defence: Where was his wife? 
Witness: At the time of seizing, his wife was not present but Manik Poshari was there. 
Defence: No one produced as witness from any member of the Manik Poshari’s family and from this village Chitholia. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: You seized all this evidence and kept under your custody without removing these materials from the house? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: In case of the Alamgir Poshri’s house, you did the same thing? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: Why did you do this? 
Witness: For the safety of people, I did it? 
Defence: How long distance from the house of Mahbubul Alam hawlader (witness of this case) to manik Poshari? 
Witness: One mile. 
Defence: These evidence are almost burn evidence, did you conduct any test? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Have you done any other examination to identify how many years old the evidence was? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: These evidences are not collected from the house of Alamgir Poshari and Manik Poshari. That is reason for not producing anyone of the Chitholia village as witness. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: These evidences are not from being burnt with fire and for hiding this truth you intentionally producing no one of Chitholia village as witness. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: You did not give these evidences under custody of Mahbubul Islam. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: Seizure list and custody all are created by you. 
Witness: It is not true. 
Defence: You did not use any identification sign to identify this evidence. 
Witness: No, I did not do it because it was not possible. 
Defence: How much tin (Corrugated Iron sheet used as roofing materials in case of Bangladeshi houses) was burn? 
Witness: I do not know. 
Before the hearing was adjourned Mizanul Islam told the tribunal that his application for internet access has become infractuous since I have asked the questions on the web sites. But I will need a laptop to ask questions on the prosecution VCDs.

Judge Zahir said that you can use the projector

Islam said that the judges can see from the projector. ‘But I will have to use Laptop when asking question on the VCDs’ [defence lawyer uses a wheelchair]

The chairman agreed to consider the matter.

During the hearing, the prosecution sought to stop a number of questions being asked by the defence, and was supported in doing so Judge Anwarul Haq. However at one point, the other judge Zahir got angry with the witness for failing to answer the question clearly?

The prosecutor Saiful said that the defence cannot ask this question to the investigation officer.

Zahir told the prosecutor to stop. ‘Why you are unnecessarily interfering the cross examination? This witness is not illiterate. He is a Superintendent of Police. He knows how to answer question. Let him answer clearly. If he does not understand the question he may take time. He may look into the record to answer. But the prosecution should not interfere,’ he said

No comments:

Post a Comment