3 June 2013
To see previous day's proceedings
Defence lawyer, Barrister Razzaq represented Mollah. He went to dais and started his submission as follows:
“My Lords, I was in the charge No. 3. There were 4 major contradictions that started with the PW5’s statement at page 577 of part 2, 4th line from the top.” He readout few lines and argued, “he has not been deposed from where the victim was taken to Mirpur. Again while framing the charge it has been mentioned that he was taken to Mirpur but it was not explained how he was taken there. Now at page 579, 3rd paragraph 3rd line, it has been stated that he was on his way to Shantinagar. But in the charge framing order it is stated that he was going to Arambagh. But in the deposition of PW5, the name of Arambagh is absent; however, the name of Shantinagar has been stated though.”
Shamsuddin Chowdhury J. argued, “Shatinagar and Arambagh is same place. Arambagh is a part of Shantinagar.” Razzaq replied, “There is some distance, at least 1.25 to 1.5 km; the difference in the names suggests that the place are different; otherwise there would have been same name.”
Razzaq then submitted, “During charge framing, it has been stated he was caught from Mirpur 10 but the PW stated that he was caught from Ittefaq roundabout by a non-Bangalee.” Sinha J. argued, “Charge is always written in short; therefore, you will not find much details in the charge.” In reply, Razzaq argued, “My submission is due to this confusion, PW5 has lost his credibility due to this discrepancy.” Sinha J. then explained, “there is no relationship between charge and any PW’s credibility.”
Razzaq then moved to his next argument, “Secondly, there is a contradiction in the examination in chief of PW5. In the examination in chief he said that he has not seen the convicted petitioner at that time, however, in the other part of his deposition he deposed, ‘Abdul Quader Molla worked for Jamat-e-Islami cadidate in the election of 1970 in which his father took part as Awami League candidate and elected as a member of the parliament.’ Thus it appears that he has seen the convicted petitioner. Now let us come to the contradiction. At the page 578, he has deposed that he never saw Molla, the convicted petitioner, face-to-face.”
Razzaq then moved to the next contradiction, “My lords, lets come to the 3rd contradiction at page 580, last paragraph and 4th line from the top where he stated that, ‘it is not true that I have not deposed to I.O. that my father was taken to Mirpur by non-Bangalee Abdul Khaleq.’ That means he said that. But in the same volume at page no. 651 your lordships will find that the I.O. (PW12) deposed that ‘it is true that the PW5 did not tell me that his father was taken to Mirpur by non-Banglee Abdul Khaeq’. Therefore, my submission is this version of evidence is not reliable.”
Mr Razzaq the moved to the last major contradiction. He submitted, “At volume 2, page 1721 to 1724 the brother and sister of the victim deposed at Jallad Khana that the victim was killed by non-Bangalees; he never mentioned Abdul Quader Molla’s name which I have shown your lordships previously.”
He then moved the contradiction by PW 10. He submitted, “there is contradiction between his examination in chief and whatever he has submitted to IO. He deposed, ‘…after that I met Nizam in the month of June.’ Here there are two versions and both of them are hearsay. His second source is the source of PW5 as well. Now the question is- which version is true?” He further argued, “the witness cannot remove mistake as they come to the court against the Abdul Quader Molla.”
“Now, may invite your lordships to turn page 11 PW10’s deposition, 3rd line from top. Here the PW 10 deposed, ‘…it is not true that I have not told to I.O. that I heard that Abu Taleb was taken to Jalladkhana by Abdul Quader Molla.”
“Now, may invite your lordships to turn page 12, 5th line from the top. Here the PW deposed ‘…non-Bangalee accountant of Daily Ittefaq, instead of taking him to his house, handed him over to Biharis.”
“In contrast to that now at let us move to page 635, the deposition by the I.O., 3rd line from the top. ‘…it is true that PW 10 in his deposition before me stated that Khandoker Abu Taleb was killed by non-Bangalees.”
Defence lawyer, Barrister Razzaq represented Mollah. He went to dais and started his submission as follows:
“My Lords, I was in the charge No. 3. There were 4 major contradictions that started with the PW5’s statement at page 577 of part 2, 4th line from the top.” He readout few lines and argued, “he has not been deposed from where the victim was taken to Mirpur. Again while framing the charge it has been mentioned that he was taken to Mirpur but it was not explained how he was taken there. Now at page 579, 3rd paragraph 3rd line, it has been stated that he was on his way to Shantinagar. But in the charge framing order it is stated that he was going to Arambagh. But in the deposition of PW5, the name of Arambagh is absent; however, the name of Shantinagar has been stated though.”
Shamsuddin Chowdhury J. argued, “Shatinagar and Arambagh is same place. Arambagh is a part of Shantinagar.” Razzaq replied, “There is some distance, at least 1.25 to 1.5 km; the difference in the names suggests that the place are different; otherwise there would have been same name.”
Razzaq then submitted, “During charge framing, it has been stated he was caught from Mirpur 10 but the PW stated that he was caught from Ittefaq roundabout by a non-Bangalee.” Sinha J. argued, “Charge is always written in short; therefore, you will not find much details in the charge.” In reply, Razzaq argued, “My submission is due to this confusion, PW5 has lost his credibility due to this discrepancy.” Sinha J. then explained, “there is no relationship between charge and any PW’s credibility.”
Razzaq then moved to his next argument, “Secondly, there is a contradiction in the examination in chief of PW5. In the examination in chief he said that he has not seen the convicted petitioner at that time, however, in the other part of his deposition he deposed, ‘Abdul Quader Molla worked for Jamat-e-Islami cadidate in the election of 1970 in which his father took part as Awami League candidate and elected as a member of the parliament.’ Thus it appears that he has seen the convicted petitioner. Now let us come to the contradiction. At the page 578, he has deposed that he never saw Molla, the convicted petitioner, face-to-face.”
Razzaq then moved to the next contradiction, “My lords, lets come to the 3rd contradiction at page 580, last paragraph and 4th line from the top where he stated that, ‘it is not true that I have not deposed to I.O. that my father was taken to Mirpur by non-Bangalee Abdul Khaleq.’ That means he said that. But in the same volume at page no. 651 your lordships will find that the I.O. (PW12) deposed that ‘it is true that the PW5 did not tell me that his father was taken to Mirpur by non-Banglee Abdul Khaeq’. Therefore, my submission is this version of evidence is not reliable.”
Mr Razzaq the moved to the last major contradiction. He submitted, “At volume 2, page 1721 to 1724 the brother and sister of the victim deposed at Jallad Khana that the victim was killed by non-Bangalees; he never mentioned Abdul Quader Molla’s name which I have shown your lordships previously.”
He then moved the contradiction by PW 10. He submitted, “there is contradiction between his examination in chief and whatever he has submitted to IO. He deposed, ‘…after that I met Nizam in the month of June.’ Here there are two versions and both of them are hearsay. His second source is the source of PW5 as well. Now the question is- which version is true?” He further argued, “the witness cannot remove mistake as they come to the court against the Abdul Quader Molla.”
“Now, may invite your lordships to turn page 11 PW10’s deposition, 3rd line from top. Here the PW 10 deposed, ‘…it is not true that I have not told to I.O. that I heard that Abu Taleb was taken to Jalladkhana by Abdul Quader Molla.”
“Now, may invite your lordships to turn page 12, 5th line from the top. Here the PW deposed ‘…non-Bangalee accountant of Daily Ittefaq, instead of taking him to his house, handed him over to Biharis.”
“In contrast to that now at let us move to page 635, the deposition by the I.O., 3rd line from the top. ‘…it is true that PW 10 in his deposition before me stated that Khandoker Abu Taleb was killed by non-Bangalees.”
No comments:
Post a Comment