The lawyer continued with prosecution witness number 1
- PW 1 admitted in cross examination that he was not present in the scene of looting his house (Charge 10).The defence then moved to Prosecution witness number 6. He argued that
- PW 1 admitted in cross examination that he was not present at the time of looting of Selim Khan’s house (Charge 7) and Manik Poshari’s house (Charge – 8).
- PW 1 claimed that Sayedee looted Modon Shaha’s shop and after the liberation war PW 1 recovered it and returned back to Modon Shaha. On the other hand PW 28 the IO has said that Modon Shaha went to India at the end of liberation war and never returned back. So PW 1’s statement is contradictory with that of PW 28.
- PW 1 denied our suggestion that Sayedee was in Pirojpur from Mid July 71 to December 71. This is against the prosecution case. This may be a reason for the prosecution not pressing on charge 20.
- PW 6 admitted in cross examination that his brother Alamgir Poshari is 30 years younger than him. So he must be born long after the liberation war. But PW 6 in his evidence in chief alleged that the accused burnt Alamgir Poshari’s house in 1971 (Charge 8). This is impossible to happen.He then talked about the name discrepancy between Shikder / Sayedee
- PW 6 admitted that he was receiving benefit of ‘One house one firm’. He also admitted that though he was not a freedom fighter, PW 12 issued a letter in his name proposing him to be a freedom fighter.
- PW 6 claimed that the Rajakars attending his house in May 1971 were wearing uniform. This cannot be true. There was not scope for Rajakars to have uniforms at that early stage of liberation war.
- PW 6 claimed that he does not know whether Parerhat was in control of liberation force before the army arrived.
- PW 6 denied that SI Azim Hawlader was IO of his case in Pirojpur. But the prosecution doc shows that he was. So PW 6 was lying.
- PW 6 admitted that he could not have given any material (burnt tin, wood) to the IO of that case. So how could PW 28 could collect these materials later on from PW 6’s house.
- PW 6 claimed that IO (PW 28) seized the burnt tin and wood from his house on 18.08.2009. But the complaint to the investigation agency was lodged on 20.07.2010 and after that the investigation has started. How the IO can seize those materials before commencement of investigation. You may also note that PW 1 gave a different date for seizure of these materials, 08.05.2010. These are total contradictions.
- PW 6 admitted that Ibrahim Kutti’s brother in law was Sahheb Ali @ Siraj. This is our case also. But the Prosecution gave suggestion to the DWs that these two are different persons.
- PW 6 claimed that though Ibrahim Kutti worked for him for more than 2½ years and he lives in the neighboring village, he does not know any of his family member or relative. So PW 6 was not telling truth.
- IO have done everything to humiliate the Accused, he concocted his name, education, social status, profession, family – everything.The tribunal adjourned until the afternoon
- On page 40, para 4 of Formal charge the prosecution did not allege that the accused was ‘Shikder’. They admitted that he was in Jessore before the liberation war.
The chairman questioned whether the issue of the name was relevant or not.
Mizanul Iaslam said that it was an important issue and that he would show the tribunal that many of the PWs have identified the Accused as ‘Delwar Shikder’. But from the documents I will show you that the Accused was never known as Shikder. He was always ‘Sayedee’.
Member Justice Anwarul Haq asked whether it made any difference – since these PWs have identified the accused in the dock. This should be sufficient.
The defence lawyer argued that the accused was not a stranger to the PWs. They claimed that they knew the accused for long time. How can they can be mistaken in his name?
- Mere identification of the accused in the dock is not material. From the evidence of PWs the lawyer said that he would show that these PWs were lying. He pointed to the following witneses who said that Sayedee was known as ‘Shikder’ in their evidence
· PW 2 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-28, Cross examination – Pg-35.
· PW 3 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-47, Cross examination – Pg-51.
· PW 4 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-55,56, Cross examination – Pg-61.
· PW 5 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-67, Cross examination – Pg-69, 70.
· PW 6 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-74, Cross examination – Pg-81.
· PW 7 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-83, 84, 85, Cross examination – Pg-91.
· PW 8 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-94, Cross examination – Pg-99.
· PW 10 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-116, Cross examination – Pg-120, 121.
· PW 11 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-123, Cross examination – Pg-129 (Delwar Hossain Delu)
· PW 23 – Evidence in Chief – Pg-166, 167, Cross examination – Pg-168.
- PW 23 has claimed that Delwar Shikder was involved in raping his wife (Charge-14) – he also admitted that Delwar Shikder may have been killed after the liberation war. The prosecution did not ask him to identify the accused. This is supporting my case.
One judge asked the lawyer, but in your cross examination you did not ask PW 23 to clarify whether the person in the doc was Delwar Shikder or not.
The lawyer said, why should I ask this question. The onus of proof is not on me. It is on the prosecution.
Chairman: in fact the identification in the dock is not necessary. The accused is very much familiar to everyone. From the very beginning I’m stating that there is no value for this formal identification as the accused is well known. If you’d like to get the benefit of non-identification of this particular witness then you have to count the other PWs who have identified the accused in the dock. So, I’ll not accept any question about identification in the dock anymore.