Defence: On whose direction you have presented the witnesses Shorafot Ali and Abdur Razzak before the Tribunal?Adjourned for lunch
Witness: By the direction of the Tribunal.
Defence: PW Abdul Latif Hawladar has given statement under section- 164 of the CRPC in the case filed by Mahbubul Alam Hawladar.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Abdul Latif Hawladar has not stated about any damages incurred by Mahbubul Alam Hawladar and his family.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Abdul Latif Hawladar has stated in his statement that- the freedom fighters, the family members of the freedom fighters, the followers of Awami League, the people of Hindu Community have been beaten by hanging around from a rope at the Razakar Camp. Did you make any of those victims as a witness of this case?
Witness: No.
Defence: The rape of three sisters of Gourango Shaha and Vanu Shaha has been stated in the statement.
Witness: No. But the rapes of women have been mentioned there.
Defence: There is no specific description about seizing the shop and house of Modon Shaha and taken the materials to Mr. Delwar Hossain Sayedee’s father in laws house and return those after the liberation war and the looting of 200 LBS Gold and Silver from the shop of Makhon Shaha.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Your statement about the missing of Abdul Latif Hawladar was not true.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: He has not asked to be present before the Tribunal as he was not willing to give statement by your accord.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Witness Suresh Chandra Mandol is aware about the complaint of this case, when did you find the information?
Witness: He himself has expressed to me when I was there at Machimpur on 20-9-2010 for the investigation purpose and was interrogating several people.
Defence: Did you inform the villagers that you are going to Machimpur on the day?
Witness: No it was not officially circulated, but informally they knew it.
Defence: Whom did you inform?
Witness: Freedom Fighter Zila & Upazila Commander, Pourosova Commissioner and the local newspaper.
Defence: Whether the local journalists were present?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether you have met Pirojpur Upazila Freedom Fighter Commander and Deputy Commander?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether you have interrogated them?
Witness: I have talked with them but didn’t record those and made them witnesses.
Defence: Who was the Chief Commander of Pirojpur Upazila Freedom Fighter Command Council, did you inquire?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Who was the Chairman of Pirojpur Pourosova during the investigation?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: The Machimpur area is under the ward no- 08 of Pirojpur Pourosova.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Who was the councilor of this ward?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Motiur Rahman Sarkar was the Pirojpur Upazila Chairman during the investigation.
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: Who was the Deputy Commander of Muktijuddha Shangshod of Pirojpur District during the investigation?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Whether you have visited the Awami League President and Secretary of Sadar Upazila during the investigation?
Witness: No.
Defence: Whether you have communicated the local Hindu- Buddho- Christian alliance community leaders?
Witness: No. But I have communicated with the local respected people.
Defence: Who was the President and Secretary of Pirojpur Thana Awami League- did you inquire?
Witness: No.
Defence: Machimpur was under the Pourosova on 1971.
Witness: No it was under the Union Parishad.
Defence: Who was the then Chairman, did you investigate?
Witness: No.
Defence: What was the population of Machimpur during your investigation?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Whether Suresh Chandra Mandal’s house is at Machimpur?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: How many people of Machimpur have been made witnesses?
Witness: 5. Namely- Ashish Kumar Mandal, Sumoti Rani Mandal, Somor Mistry, Advocated Gopal Krishno Mandal, Suresh Chandra Mandal.
Defence: Whether in 1971 the abovementioned people’s houses were at Machimpur?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: When did you go to Machimpur?
Witness: On 20-09-2010 at 15:00 P.M. to 19:15 P.M.
Defence: During the investigation you have stayed at Sumoti Rani Mandal’s house.
Witness: Yes for sometimes. I have stayed at the house of SamarMistry for sometime, then stayed behind the LGED office, then at Advocate Gopal Krishno Shaha’s house, then stayed at Suresh Chandra Mandal’s house at Moddho Machimpur.
Defence: Whether you have gone to the Moddho Machimpur Bus Stand?
Witness: Yes. There was a bus stand on 1971 on the same place. The new Bus Stand and the Moddho Machimpur Bus Stand is located at the same place.
Defence: There was deep Bush behind the Moddho Machimpur Bus Stand at 1971.
Witness: Yes. But now the bush has been lightened.
Defence: In 1971 who was in the possession of the Bush?
Witness: That was in the possession of a Hindu man and now it is possessed by Abul Khayer Shikdar.
Defence: Where is Mr. Abul Khayer’s house situated at?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: On 1971 Machimpur was populated by both Hindu and Muslim people.
Witness: Yes but the Hindus were large in numbers.
Defence: Whether you have interviewed any Muslim during your investigation?
Witness: No.
Defence: Whether you have found any Muslim people older than 55 years during your investigation at that area?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: What is the distance from the Bush behind the Moddho Machimpur Bus Stand to the house of Major Zia Uddin?
Witness: I have not gone to the house of Major Zia Uddin and didn’t investigate anything about the house.
Defence: Whether Major Ziauddin’s father late Aftab Uddin Ahmed has been elected as the Pirojpur Pourosova Mayor?
Witness: I have not investigated.
Defence: Whether the statement of late Aftab Uddin Ahmed has been stated in the book ‘Shadhinota Juddher Dolil Potro’?
Witness: I can’t say specifically.
Defence: If you have found the name of any student or teacher of the local schools and colleges who have been found missing and afterwards whose tresses have not been found.
Witness: There is no information about the death and I have not found the name of anyone who has been at first found missing and then was tress-less, but I have heard some people have left towards India.
Defence: Whether you have gone with the process of the witness Advocate Gopal Krishno Mondol with the process of the witness Suresh Chandra Mandal?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: How many times you have gone to the house of Suresh Chandra Mandal?
Witness: For once.
Defence: Whether there was anyone from the Police department when you have visited the house of Suresh Chandra Mandal?
Witness: The SI of Pirojpur Police Station Badal Krishno was also there.
Defence: Whether there were any local people in the house of Suresh Chandra Mandal?
Witness: Yes there were 2 or 4 people.
Defence: Whether you have asked Suresh Chandra to give statement?
Witness: Yes I have asked and he has replied he will come to give his statements, but then he was sick as he is patient of heart disease. He told me to take his statement after taking Ashish Mandal’s statement. Thinking it was reasonable I have left.
Defence: What is the distance of Dhopabari behind the LGED to Machimpur?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: According to the statement of Suresh Chandra Mandal it was found that- Advocate GOpal Krishno Mandal has also witnesses the same incident with Suresh Chandra Mandal.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: According to the statement given by Suresh Chandra Mandal- when Pakistan Armies and Razakars were moving for any operation the little girls and boys used to follow them and watched the incidents; among those children no one has been made witness except Ashish Mandal.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: According to the statements of Suresh Chandra Mandal- now Muslims are residing in the houses of Debendra Nath Mandal, Pulin Bihari and Mukund Balad.
Witness: Yes but the names have not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Whether you have made anyone as a witness from the area of Dhopabari?
Witness: Yes. Namely- Ashish Kumar Mandal, Suresh Chandra Mandal, Sumoti Rani mandal, Advocate Gopal Krishno Mandal, Samar Mistry.
Defence: In which part of Machimpur Advocate Gopal Krishno’s house is situated at?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: In which part of Machimpur Suresh Chandra Mandal’s house is situated at?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Advocate Gopal Krishno Mandal and Suresh Chandra Mandal’s houses are adjacent to each other.
Witness: No there is little distance in between two houses.
Defence: Whether in 1971 Advocate Gopal Krishno Mandal’s house was situated at the Dhopabari?
Witness: Yes. Now he has constructed a new house.
Defence: Who are living now in the launderer house?Chairman: The ssue of 19(2) is very simple that is it is about whose statement is allowed and who are not allowed. You are now allowed to ask questions about the 31 witnesses who are rejected. We will not waste our time by doing this.
Witness: Now it is known as an area of launderers.
Defence: It is known as launderer house as launderers live there.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: There is no existence of other 4 witnesses apart from Krisno Mondol in the area of launderer house.
Witness: No, but their houses are along side of it.
Defence: Did you not record the statement of any other witnesses except Gopal Krisno Mondol in the area of launderer house?
Witness: No.
Defence: Did Sures Chandra Mondol describe in the statement given to you about murder of Vagirothi and looting of treasury money and arms?
Witness: No, he did not give.
Defence: Did you conceal it after knowing that the house of Major Ziauddin is at Nasimpur in Pirojpur district?
Witness: This is not true.
Defence: You do not present the witness Sures Chandra Mondol in the Tribunal intentionally because he is not agreed to give witness according to your words.
Witness: It is not true.
Defence: In which date did you met witness Aayub Ali Hawlader for the first time?
Witness: In Parerhat Rajlokkhi High School in 19-08-2010 at 15:30 to 18:00 .
Defence: Where is the house of Aayub Ali Hawlader?
Witness: In the village of Shankar Pasa.
Defence: How many children do Eashak Ali Hawlader has?
Witness: There is no information about it.
Defence: Who brought Aayub Ali Hawlader to give his statement?
Witness: He came but I don’t know who brought him.
Defence: Did you inform the chairman of Shankerpasa Union that you will go for investigation in 19-08-2010?
Witness: I don’t inform him specially.
Defence: Did you go Shankerpasa union or village during the time of investigation?
Witness: I did not go union, but village.
Defence: Where did you go there?
Witness: In the house of Dalim khan son of late Mahbubur Rahman.
Defence: Did you go to the house of local M.P Aawaal Shaheb in that village?
Witness: No, I didn’t go.
Defence: What does Dalim, son of late Mahbubur Rahman, do now?
Witness: He is engaged in business in different areas including Parerhat.
Defence: Did you not get the identity of any other Mahbubur Rahman except this Mahbubur Rahman who was the inhabitant of Parerhat or who had the business in Parerhat?
Witness: It is not in my note.
Defence: In which business Aayub Ali Hawlader was engaged?
Witness: He is engaged in business even now but I can’t say specially which business.
Defence: In which part of Parerhat did he do his business?
Witness: It is not in my note.
Defence: On what date did you met with Aayub Ali Hawlader for investigation for a second time?
Witness: In the Pirojpur circuit house in 06-04-2011, from 9:00 to 14:00.
Defence: On which date did you take statement from him?
Witness: On 19-08-2010 during the time of first meeting.
Defence: Did you not ask him and record his statement in 06-04-2011?
Witness: I asked him but didn’t record his statement.
Defence: On which date did you go to the house of Aayub Ali Hawlader with process for presenting in Tribunal?
Witness: It is not in my mind that which date or which time but I went before the prayer of Johor.
Defence: How many times did you go there for taking process?
Witness: I went once.
Defence: Did you go to take the process of Ruhul Amin Nabin at the same time when you went there with taking the process of Aayub Ali Hawlader?
Witness: In this moment it is not in my mind.
Defence: Did you go to take the process of different persons during the time when you went there to take the process of Aayub Ali Hawlader?
Witness: I went there taking with process of all witnesses indicated by Tribunal but what their number is not in my mind.
Defence: Did you get him?
Witness: No, I didn’t get him. His wife is dead and I got his daughter and talked with him.
Defence: What did his daughter say to you?
Witness: Daughter said that his father is being threatened if he gives witness and she said to me that please uncle don’t take my father for giving witness.
Defence: Did you record her statement with picture?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Did you collect it to the court with picture?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: You brought Aayub Ali Hawlader to give witness in the Tribunal.
Witness: It is not true.
Defence: Are there any witnesses who went from tribunal room without giving witness even after coming to give witness?
Witness: Yes, Shorafat Ali and Abdur Razzak.
Defence: Whether you brought them with process or without process?
Witness: In this moment it is not in my mind.
Defence: Did you go to the house of Shorafat Ali and Abdur Razzak?
Witness: No.
Defence: My Lord. I have to ask questions about those 31 witness also, to question the legality of the prosecution’s application.
Justice Nizam: No, you are not allowed to ask questions upon the statement of those 31 witness, we allowed only 15 witnesses statement as evidence so you have to cross upon those 15 only.
Defence: My lord, prosecution has submitted documents about these witnesses based upon the information of I.O. So I have the right to ask questions to the I.O.
Justice Nizam: Among these 46 witnesses only 15 witnesses are taken as evidence otherwise they are treated as witness like section161 of the CrPc. Already we have rejected 31 witnesses since we found nothing.
Defence: My lord, in your Order and review Order no where you have mentioned that these 31 is false and fabricated, that was reason you have rejected 31 witnesses.
Justice Nizam: No, you cannot ask question as they are already rejected.
At that time Justice Nizam said “Mr. Tajul it comes to our ear what you have said, I cautioned you not to say something like this”. I have heard the remark you made.
Tajul Islam: No, My lord I am saying anything to you. Just I have talked with my senior friend nothing else.
Justice Nizam: You are suggesting to leave the court room.
Tajul Islam: No, I have said to my friend if you rejected our prayer, there is no necessity of staying here. And my lord, we never hear discussion amongst yourselves and so you are not supposed to hear also. (stood up and protested loudly)
Justice Nizam: It comes to the same meaning.
Then one of the prosecution counsels Abdur Rahman Hawlader stood up from his seat and protested the behaviour as loudly. Then Tajul Islam said to the prosecution “ Do not shout”
Justice Nizam: Mr. Tajul, you cannot say it to the defense counsels. You are shouting more than anyone else. Okay, we are having no further discussion in this regard. All day long, proceedings is going on befitting manner but now Tajul Islam comes in and chaos started.
Defence: My lord, Tajul never spoke about the leave of court. But my lord, intervention of the prosecution during middle of argument with the tribunal was not desirable.
After that the situation was calm down and Justice Nizam said again we will not allow these questions.
Then the court was adjourned.
No comments:
Post a Comment