Mizanul Islam: What have you seen when you have gone to the house of the witness Suresh Mondol with the summons?Chairman: These two men are not included in the 15 witnesses, so we will not accept any questions about them.
Helal Uddin [PW-28]: I have found him sick and afterwards when we have sent someone to take his statement it came to our knowledge that he is not in his house.
Defence: If you have found any other information about witness Shohidul Islam Khan Selim after your conversation with his daughter and after the submission of the report?
Witness: Yes. We have heard that the followers of the accused party are threatening him that if he exposes to deposition then he will be killed.
Defence: Does Mr. Shohidul regularly stays in his house?
Witness: Since the first visit at his house till the submission of the report it is not true that he stays in his house on a regular basis.
Defence: Whether any GD/ Complaint has been filed in the local Police Station about the irregular staying of Shohidul Islam Khan Selim at his house?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: Whether the Police Officer who has gone to take him from his home has filed any GD/ Complaint about non-finding him at his house?
Witness: The officer has not given the information; he has expressed the previous opinion that he is not found.
Defence: Since then till the submission of the report Shohidul Islam Khan Selim does fishing business at the Parerhat Bazar.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: After your visit to the witness Ayub Ali untill the submission of the report the same condition is prevailing.
Witness: Not true. I have confirmed that due to the threat of the followers of the accused he has been absconding himself.
Defence: If any GD/complaint has been filed from his family about him?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: Whether the Police Officer who has gone to take him from his home has filed any GD/ Complaint about non-finding him at his house?
Witness: No he has expressed the previous opinion.
Defence: When for the first time did you go to the house of witnesses- Setara Begum, Rani Begum and Mostofa Hawladar with the summons, whom did you find there?
Witness: I have only found witness Setara Begum. Afterwards who have gone to take the witnesses they have not found them there. They have known from the family members of the witnesses that- the witnesses are hiding themselves.
Defence: Witness Abdul Latif Hawladar’s house is located near about two KM away from the Indurkani Police Station.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether the Polices of Indurkani Police Station supervised the area for maintaining the situation of Law and Order in the area?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: If the Polices of Indurkani Police Station has filed any report about the threatening of the witness Abdul Latif Hawladar?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: If the Police have submitted any report about the threatening of Anil Chandra Mondol and Ajit Kumar Shil?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: The condition of Usha Rani Malakar’s condition was same when you have submitted the report about her.
Witness: Not true, because during the submission of the report her physical condition has seriously been deteriorated. By physical condition I have meant both her quite losing of the memory and the deterioration of the physical condition. After the first visit I have heard about her treatment at the Governmental Hospital. But I don’t know anything about any further treatment. I have not seen any papers or documents about her treatment or the medical certificate.
Defence: What is the distance of her house to Hospital?
Witness: Approximately two and half KM.
Defence: If you have instructed the Officer in charge of the Indurkani Police Station to look after the treatment of Usha Rani?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: If you have found any report from the Officer in charge of the Indurkani Police Station about the treatment of Usha Rani?
Witness: No, but he has informed me orally about the treatment.
Defence: Your statement about Usha Rani that- ‘she is suffering from memory losing and there is a probability of death when travelling.’- is not true.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Your report is not true.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: No doctor has agreed to give a report to you about Usha Rani, so you have not submitted any report.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Can you mention the number of the GD which has been filed by the Monika Rani, daughter of the witness Suranjan Bali.
Witness: Yes, 773 of 25-02-2012.
Defence: The same condition of Suranjan Bali was prevailing after the submission of the GD.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Witnesses, Ashish Kumar Mondol, Sumoti Rani Mondol, Somor Mistry are the people from the same area.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Are Somor Mistry and Sumoti Rani are relatives.
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: Whether any relative of Sumoti Rani lives in Dhaka?
Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.
Defence: When did Sumoti Rani and Ashish Kumar Mondol leave from the place of Dhaka which was intended for the witnesses to stay?
Witness: I don’t know. I was not present when they have left.
Defence: When did you first hear about their leaving?
Witness: From the Prosecutors at the Tribunal.
Defence: If you have investigated about the so called relative of witnesses Sumoti Rani, Ashish Kumar and Somor Mistry at Dhaka?
Witness: No.
Defence: Have you filed any GD entry at the local Police Station of the witnesses’ residence about their leaving?
Witness: No, because it was not my duty to do so.
Defence: If you have any communication with the place of Dhaka where the witnesses were staying at?
Witness: No.
Defence: Some witnesses have come to Dhaka from Pirojpur by your assistance.
Witness: Yes. At first I have taken them at the office of the Investigation Agency afterwards steps have been taken to present them before the Tribunal. I have meant the office of Baily Road by mentioning the office of Investigation Agency, there is no accommodation facilities at the office.
Defence: Where do the Police Officers used to stay who have arrived from Pirojpur with the witnesses?
Witness: If needed the arrangement of their accommodation were dealt with.
Defence: If any other person from the investigation agency used to go at Pirojpur?
Witness: Sometimes I have taken the assistance of some Investigators to bring the witnesses to Dhaka.
Defence: Have you visited the places where the investigators or the witnesses used to stay if needed, since the beginning of the deposition till date?
Witness: No.
Defence: Have you filed any GD in the local Police Station of the permanent addresses of the witnesses- Ashish Kumar, Somor Mistry, Sumoti Rani?
Witness: No.
Defence: The report you have submitted about the non-producing of the three witnesses at the Tribunal is not true.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Whether the Prosecution has consulted with you before applying under section- 19(2) of the ICT Act to accept the statements of the 46 witnesses as evidence?
Witness: No.
Defence: No process has been sent to the houses of the witnesses of Pirojpur who have not been presented before the Tribunal.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: To whose house you have gone with the summons for the Tribunal who were absent?
Witness: Most probably I have visited everyone’s house.
Defence: Mention the names of the absent witnesses; you have visited whose houses with the processes?
Witness: I can’t remember, but some summons were in my hand.
Defence: ‘After threatening the witness no- 6 to 19 by the followers of the accused and after that they became absconded’- you have stated that; how many witnesses have you found in support of your statement?
Witness: I have found 15 or 16 witnesses in support of this statement and the local people say that they are armed cadres.
Defence: If the details of these 15 or 16 people have been enlisted in the Police Station?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: Whether any complaint has been lodged in the Police Station about the threatening of the witnesses?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: What types of steps have been taken about Shamim alias Dacoit Shamim?
Witness: I have informed the Coordinator of the Investigation Agency in writing before the submission of the report of 17-3-2012. He has instructed the relevant persons to take measures about that, but I don’t know what measures have been taken about the matter.
Defence: Have you submitted any report to the Prosecution that- it is not possible to present the witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the application?
Witness: No.
Defence: You have produced a false report to the Prosecution for not producing the absent witnesses before the Tribunal.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Did you bring witness Kholilur Rahman Sheikh and Ishak Ali at Dhaka for the purpose of deposition.
Witness: No.
Defence: Did you visit the house of Kholilur Rahman Sheikh and Ishak Ali to present them before the Tribunal?
Defence: No, My Lord, they are under section-19 (2) of the ICT Act.
Chairman: No, we will not accept.
Defence: Already some questions have been asked about them.
Chairman: Regarding the remaining 31 witnesses about whom the application has been rejected, you will not ask any question about them. Our concern is about those 15 witnesses now, regarding the other 31 witnesses we are not concerned right now. Even you have not asked for the review of the order regarding those 31 witnesses, so you may ask question about 15 witnesses.
Defence: I would like to ask about Mr. Kholilur Rahman Sheikh.
Chairman: You may ask question on the matters which have been allowed. Why do you like to raise question about the matter which has gone in your favor? The petition has been rejected about the 31 witnesses, so you should not raise question about that. So, omit the last two questions
There was then discussion about a number of applications, (see here).
No comments:
Post a Comment