26 Nov 2012: Sayedee defense closing day 6

The defence’s closing argument relating to Sayedee continued following on from the previous day (The summary of Sayedee defense closing arguments partly draws from defence lawyer's own notes of proceedings)

Killing of Magistrate Mizanur Rahman, SDPO Foizur Rahman and SDO Abdur Razzaq in Pirojpur town

Mizanul Islam then started to submit on charge number 5.

- Accused has been charged as Principal offender and also as abettor. How can he be charged as principal and secondary offender at the same time? Chairman responsed by saying that this could happen and will be looked at at the time of judgment.

- it is absolutely uncertain when, where and who killed the victims. The prosecution has produced the following evidences to support these charges.

- PW 27 (only live witness for Charge 5) brother of victim Mizanur Rahman – completely hearsay. This witness testified that he heard from some people of Pirojpur in 1971 that Delwar Shikder was involved in killing of the victims. He came to know later on that this Delwar Shikder was Sayedee (i.e. Accused). He admitted in cross examination that he heard that Delwar Shikder was Sayedee after 1990 for the first time. He also admitted that he did not clarify this at that time. He said in cross examaitnion that he clarified this after 2009. He also admitted that he did not clarify this from anyone of Pirojpur from whom he heard about involvement of Delwar Shikder. So this evidence has no value. He could not link the accused with Charge 5.

- PW 27’s credibility is also questionable. He was member of parliament of the ruling party for two terms. But he admitted that he did not file any complaint about the killing of his brother.

- PW 28 – relevant portion of cross examination of Investigation Officer cannot link the accused with the incidents in Charge 5.

- Prosecution Exhibit 8 - Dainik Jonokantha’ dated 05/03/2001, Prosecution Exhibit – 11 - Dainik Bhorer Kagoj’ dated 04/11/2007 and Prosecution Exhibit – 46 - Dainik Jonokontho Pg. no. 20 dated 17/07/2010. These are propagandist newspapers, reported solely to discredit the accused in the ensuing general election in October 2001, general allegation with no detail, reported without referring to any reliable source.

Adjourned for lunch

Lawyer then listed defence documents

- Exhibit – E. Book named “Jusna-o-Jononir Golpo” by Humayun Ahmed about the killing of his father Foysur Rahman. Accused was not named in that book.

- Exhibit – Q - Book “Jibon Je Rokom” written by Ayesa Foaz wife of the victim S.D.P.O Foysur Rahman. In that book she said that she filed a case in 1972 about killing of her husband against some named individuals. The accused is not named in that book.

- Exhibit – V – Book named “Bangladesher Sadinota Juddho Dolil Potro” (‘HISTORY OF BANGLADESH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE’). 8th volume, Complied by, Mr. Hasan Hafizur Rahman, Published by the Ministry of Information of the Government of Bangladesh in June 1984. Cover pages and Page no. 240 – 248 containing the statement of Ali Haider Khan of Pirojpur dated 16.08.1973 describing killing of SDO Abdur Razzaq, SDPO Foysur Rahman, Magistrate Mizanur Rahman and Bhagirothi with other atrocities in Pirojpur town. This Ali Haider Khan is son in law of victim Foysur Rahman but did not mention that the Accused was involved in that killings. He was listed as Prosecution Witness and is available as he is a practicing Advocate of Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Why the Prosecution did not call him to testify. Probably he was not ready to support the false allegations against the Accused.

- Exhibit – AX – News report of the Daily Janata dated 24.04.2012 reported that the proposed PW Jafar Iqbal denied receiving any summons from the tribunal to testify before the Tribunal though the Prosecution filed Application under section 19(2) of the 1973 Act claiming that he was unavailable and cannot be brought before the Tribunal. This person is son of victim Foysur Rahman. Why the prosecution did not call him?

Islam then said that he would summarise charge 5:

The prosecution could only produce PW 27 as live witness who is purely hearsay. He heard of Delwar Shikder NOT Sayedee in 1971 in Pirojpur for killing of his brother victim Mizanur Rahman. He admitted that for the first time in 1990 he heard that this Delwar Shikder was Sayedee. He admitted that he clarified this statement for the first time after 2009. He also admitted no one from Pirojpur of 1971 told him that Delwar Shikder was Sayedee. So this is not sufficient to prove charge 5 against the Accused. The Prosecution documents are Awami League newspapers and most of them are to target the Accused to discredit him in the 2001 and 2007 general election. On the other hand the defence documents shows that the books written by the wife and son of the victims did not mention the accused while describing the incidents of Charge 5. The defence documents also shows that the family members of the victims are not willing to testify against the Accused. So the prosecution failed to prove Charge 5

Rape of three sisters of Gourango Shaha

Mizanul Islam then started to discuss the charge relating to raping three sisters of Gourango Shaha. The prosecution relied on the following evidence:

- PW 1 – No specific allegation, not neighbor to the victims. his report shows that there was no Rape Victim in that area.

- PW 3 – No specific allegation, not neighbor to the victims.

- PW 4 – No specific allegation, not neighbor to the victims.

- PW 5 – No specific allegation, not neighbor to the victims.

- PW 6 – No specific allegation, not neighbor to the victims.

- The only neighbor of the victims were PW 2. But he did not say anything about this incident.

- PW 13 – He is brother of the victims but not reliable – as per his National ID Card his date of birth is 8-7-1963. So he was only 7 years old in 1971. But he claimed that he was 27 in 1971. It has been claimed by many PWs that the Accused lived in his Father in law’s house during the disputed period; but none of the PWs claimed as Gourango Chandra Shaha claims that the Accused lived in the house of brother in law. His evidence is contradictory to the other PWs. He could recall none of the Razakars except the Accused. This is absolutely unbelievable.

- Exhibit 8 – No Specific allegation

- Exhibit 11 – No specific allegation

- Exhibit 259 – 19(2) statement of Anil Chondro Mondol – No specific allegation

- Material Exhibit XII – VDO and still photo of the places of occurances – not helping to support the prosecution case.

Charge 14: Rape of Shefali Ghorami and destruction in Hoglabunia Village.

Islam then discussed charge 14. This he said relied upon the following evidence –

- PWs -1,2,3,4,5,9,12 to support this charge. But none of these PWs claimed that Shefali Ghorami was raped.

- PW 23 – is husband of victim Shefali Ghorami – he admitted that Delwar Shikder was involved in raping and he admitted in cross examination that Delwar Shikder son of Rosul Shikder may have been killed after liberation war.

Chairman: I think PW 23 did not understand your question at the time of answering this question. We will not consider this part of the evidence.

Islam: but why, our question was very clear. You may remember that this PW took time at the time of answering this question. Moreover you did not raise this objection at the time of recording PW 23. You cannot raise this now.

Chairman: we can make necessary comments on this in our judgment.

Adjourned