Prosecutor Whether the person against whom the GD has been filed as has been stated in material exhibit- BA is an accused in this case?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor: Do you know whether any of the relevant papers relating to the following GD has been submitted annexed with the present case?
Witness: I don’t know.
Witness: The following materials will be counted as the material exhibit as mentioned below. Material Exhibit Number- BA- General Diary, Material Exhibit Number-BA1- Prosecution Report, Material Exhibit Number- BA2 Order Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BB General Diary, Material Exhibit Number- BB1 Order Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BB2 Prosecution Report, Material Exhibit Number- BC General Diary, Material Exhibit Number- BC1 Order Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BC2 Prosecution Report, Material Exhibit Number- BD General Diary, Material Exhibit Number- BD1 Prosecution Report, Material Exhibit Number- BD2 Order Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BE General Diary, Material Exhibit Number- BE1 Order Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BE2 Prosecution Report, Material Exhibit Number- BF Order Sheet.
The date of the last order of BA2 is 26-6-2011, The date of the last order of BB1 is 29-6-2011, The date of the last order of Bc1 is 29-6-11, The date of the last order of BD2 is 29-6-2011, The date of the last order of BE1 is 16-4-2011, The date of the last order of BF is 29-6-2011.
Prosecutor: When was the investigation report of this case has been submitted?
Witness: I don’t know.
Prosecutor: Material Exhibit Number- BG is Order Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BG1 is FIR, Material Exhibit Number- BG2 is Charge Sheet, Material Exhibit Number- BG3 is the statement of the witness--- which are not relevant with this case.
Witness: I don’t know. I’m not a party of the case under the series- BG. The certified copies have been collected by my counsel on my request.
Prosecutor: The hand writing contained in the first page of material exhibit- BI1 is not as similar to the hand writing of second page.
Witness: Not true. The first page and second page might not be similar in size because of the photocopy.
Prosecutor: There is no memo number in this GD.
Witness: True.
Prosecutor: These GD’s have been created for the purpose of this case with an ill motive.
Witness: Not true.
[Then the Prosecutor has expressed his intention to see the material exhibit of the defence which contains the speech of the investigation officer.]
[Multimedia Show of Material exhibit-1 of defence which has shown the sign board of mass graveyard of Pirojpur, interview of several people and the IO Helal Uddin is briefing the attendance in a meeting.]
Prosecutor: Who has captured this video?
Witness: Many of the journalists of Pirojpur have recorded this but I don’t know their name, their logo of the television channel is apparent on the material exhibit.
Prosecutor: Whether it is edited?
Witness: I don’t know.
Prosecutor: When the videos have been captured?
Witness: I don’t know.
Prosecutor: Whether Usha Rani Malakar, Shukhronjon Bali, Gonesh Chandra Shaha, Chan Mia Poshari- whose names have been contained in the material exhibit- 2 & 3 are the prosecution witness?
Witness: I don’t know.
Prosecutor: Who, when and where the interviews of the following witnesses have been captured?
Witness: I don’t know. But the reports have been shown in two TV channels and the names of the reporter is there also.
Prosecutor: Whether the reports are manipulated?
Witness: I don’t know.
Prosecutor: There is no existence of safe house.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: There is no existence of such kinds of register book of safe house.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: All the materials provided in support of safe house are fake and false.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: How could you manage the material exhibit- 1, 2 & 3?
Witness: I have collected the material exhibit number-1 from the Desh TV Pirojpur Archive, Exhibit-2 & 3 have been collected from the Dhanmondi Media Centre.
Prosecutor: You have frightened the Prosecution witnesses.
Witness: Not true.
Chairman: About whom you are talking about?
Prosecutor: Sukhranjan Bali and Gonesh Shaha.
Witness: Not true. [With the objection of defence]
Prosecutor: All the papers submitted are false.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: You have stated false statement.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: This is the end of my cross examination.
It was 01:20 P.M. and both the Prosecution and defence have drawn the kind attention of the Tribunal to time and sought to continue after the recess but the Chairman said that they have to complete this witness before the recess and the court will endafter the completion of thecross examination of this witness whatever the time is and the recess will start later.
Re-examination by the defence
Then there was an interchange between tribunal and the defense team
Re-examination by the defence
Witness: I would like to submit some relevant documents in regard of this case. [Then he has submitted the photocopies of the reports published on Daily Ittefaq 29th December, 1974 as the material exhibit number- BJ, the photocopy of the report of Daily Jugantor 13th August, 2009 at the first page 5th column and page- 15 column-2 to be counted as material exhibit numbers- BK & BK1. News report of Daily Ittefaq dated 29th December 1974 about the accused’s addressing a religious gathering and News reports of Daily Jugantor dated 13th August 2009 about the decision of the Appellate Division declaring there was no bar on DHS to travel abroad and that the Attorney General commented that War crime case may be filed against DHS. Another report on the same day in the same news paper that within 2 hours of the comments of the AG, Manik Poshari (PW-6) filed a complaint alleging War crime against DHS.]Cross Examination:
Defence: What is the reason behind filing this case?
Witness: This case has been filed with political ill intention. The election manifesto of Awami League has stated the matter of the trial of the war criminals which has also been mentioned at material exhibit number- 9 and the statement of IO also stated the ground.
Prosecutor: The material exhibit- BJ contains the name of the district as Khulna.
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: Whether the report contains the name of the arranger of the meeting?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor: The material exhibit- BK is a report about a case against Mr. Sayedee about the matter of visiting abroad.
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: The material exhibit- BK1 does not relate to this case.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: You have stated—“ This case has been filed with political ill intention. The election manifesto of Awami League has stated the matter of the trial of the war criminals which has also been mentioned at material exhibit number- 9 and the statement of IO also stated the ground.”--- it is untrue.
Witness: Not true.
Prosecutor: This is all about my cross examination. [Ends at 02:07 P.M.]
Then there was an interchange between tribunal and the defense team
No comments:
Post a Comment