17 defence witnesses have given deposition. Among those 17 and 5 were from Jessore, 3 are freedom fighters, 3 are from Hoglabunia village, one is Delwar Hossain Syedee’s son and other 5 are the witnesses from different areas. By analyzing their statements following has been found-
DW-13 is Masud Syedee, who is the son of Delwar Hossain Syedee. He has given statement as the informant. He has not presented any information in his statement that since 25th March, 1971 till 16th December, 1971 Delwar Hossain Syedee and his family has stayed in Jessore. About his father’s profession he has not said anything other than writing as his father’s present profession and which was also his past profession. His staying in Jessore for the sake of writing is in no way believable and it has not been found from any witness’s statement. So, the fact of accused person’s staying at Jessore is totally false.
DW-4 Abul Hossain has stated that by staying at Jessore Mr. Syedee used to give religious speeches.
DW-4 Abul Hossain and DW-6 Rowshan Ali stated in the cross examination that- Delwar Hossain Syedee has stayed with his two sons at Jessore and Bagharpara.
The exhibit-151 is the nomination paper of the candidate for the national parliamentary election- 2008 which has been submitted by the accused himself, where he has stated the ages of his 4 sons in Vil-13 Page-3396. The elder son’s date of birth is 18-11-1970 whereas the others date of births have been stated after the liberation war.
So, the statements of DW-4 and DW-6 along with other witnesses are totally false. To save the accused they have given these false statements. Actually Delwar Hossain Syedee has fled from Parerhat to protect himself.
DW-6 Rowshan Ali has not stated anything about the profession of the accused in his examination in chief and cross examination.
DW-8 Kobat Ali has stated that the accused used to give religious speeches over several areas of Jessore.
DW-12 Hafijul Haq has stated that the accused was a ‘Wajin’
DW-14 Emran Hossain has not stated anything about the profession. In the submitted passport of the accused there has no mentioning of the profession of the accused as ‘Religious Speaker’. After this discussion it is apparent that the fact of the accused person’s staying at Jessore by renting a house for the purpose of giving religious speech is totally vague. Prosecutor added that Peer’s sons are alive but were not called as defense witnesses
DW-4 has stated that- he used to give statement in different courts in different months. He has deposed false things about the family members of Delwar Hossain Syedee. So, all of his statements are false.
DW-12 Hafijul Haq has claimed to be the neighbor of Delwar Hossain Syedee as per living at his father’s house on 1971. He has showed a deed in support of his house, and it was found that it is a different deed. So, it is proved that the claim of the accused person’s staying at the Jessore New Town is totally a false thing.
DW-8 Kobat Ali and DW-14 Emran Hossain have claimed themselves as the resident of the area Mohiron of Jessore district. Their statements are self contradictory and non believable.
DW-6 Rowshan Ali stated false things about the family member of the accused. So, it is
apparent that- all of his statements are false. He is not the relative or follower of the Peer so it is not credible that he called him to take Sayedee in his home. Also his home is 2 K.M. away from peer’s home. According to him Sayedee used to stay in Jessore during non-cooperation movement of Seikh Muzibur Rahman, but from 1973 to 1980 DHS stayed in Khulna. It is supported by DW 3 and 11 in their cross examination. In reality Sayedee escaped to Rowshan’s home after liberation.
DW-1 Samsul Alam Talukdar is a freedom fighter. On 8-12-1971 he has stayed at Parerhat Freedom Fighter’s Camp for 2 to3 hours. At that time, he said, no one has stated anything about this accused. But who, against whom has stated what - these are not found in his deposition. Whether he has met Mr. Syedee or the position of Mr. Syedee on that time, these are also not found in the deposition. It was not found from the deposition whether he has searched for all the victims of the Parerhat area. It was only found that without scrutinizing anything he has given statement only by the request of Delwar Hossain Syedee’s son Masud Syedee. On the other hand he was a member of Vasani NAP before the liberation war and he was also a member of the group of Moshiur Rahamn Jadu Mia’s which was against the liberation war. Afterwards UPP which was in support of liberation war has been formed. And the people against the cause (this witness along with Moshiur Rahman Jadu Mia) have formed BNP. And the BNP and Jamat is aligned it is well known. So he has given false statement in support of this accused who is a leader of Jamate Islami. He is politically motivated witness, due to his political interest he was here to be a DW, he simply gave mere opinion.
DW-5 Khosrul Alam is a freedom fighter has stated that: 'Liyakot Ali Shekh and Samsul Alam Talukdar have visited several areas jointly; among those areas there was Parerhat High School where the Razakar Camp was situated and the Pakistan Armies used to stay sometimes. The local people have informed Captain Zia Uddin about the activities of the Razakars. No man has stated to Captain Zia Uddin that Delwar Hossain Syedee was a Razakar.' These statements are totally contradictory with the statement of DW-1. During staying at the Parerhat freedom fighter’s camp he has met Delwar Hossain Syedee once or twice - this is totally false statement because PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 PW-12 and other freedom fighter witnesses have all stated in their statements that after the liberation war this accused has fled away. There was no chance to meet Delwar Hossain Syedee alone in the freedom fighters camp. And this witness has also claimed that he was a member of Chatro League but he doesn’t know what is required to be a member of Chatro League and he does not also know the slogan of Chatro League. And he has worked at the civil project of Air defence of Saudi Arabia Air defence; he is holder of two passports. He has got the job of Saudi Arabia air defence by the favor of Jamaat Islami. After the conversation it was found that- he is expert in telling lie and for keeping the connection with the Jamate Islami he has given false statement.
He has made a mockery with the material facts and with other PWs; his statement is self contradictory; in his cross examination he came at Parerhat on 7th December 1971 and left on 15/20th February 1972. But all the Occurrences held earlier; he was not involved in Chaatra league; he is involved in politics and politics is driving everything.
One of judges said that he has given contradictory statements, they are not trustworthy
Defence witness 10
DW-10 though claimed himself as a freedom fighter but he doesn’t know whether his name is there in the ‘Muktibatra’ (a journal which published list of Freedom Fighters). Even his name has not been contained in the Voter list of freedom fighters. So, it is apparent that- benefitted from the defence side he has given false statement.
About DW 10, Nizamul Huq asked some questions to Haider Ali.
Nizamul Islam: You told that taking the incident of Vanu Saha, there were some dramas and novels, but is there any one novel or drama where Saidee is mentioned as accused?
Haider Ali was silent then Mizanul Islam answered that, Vanu Saha’s sons evidence is the only evidence regarding this issue.
DW-2 Abdur Razzaque Akond, DW-7 Jamal Hossain Fakir, DW-11 Golam Mostofa are the residents of village- Nolbunia of Indurkani Thana of Pirojpur. They have stated that they saw the dead body of Ibrahim Kutti at the village Nolbunia and stated that they saw the dead body falling beside the Parerhat Bridge. The Parerhat Bridge is approximately 3 km away from Nolbunia village and Pirojpur is approximately 4 km away on the opposite side. So the statements about taking Saheb Ali and his mother and the deadbody of Kutti at opposite directions at the same time is totally impossible. Other than this their deposition are self contradictory and do not support each-others point.