Sayedee appeal judgment - rolling blog

This is a rolling post looking at the decision (due to be given on Wednesday morning, tomorrow) of Bangladesh's appellate division concerning the appeal by Delwar Hossain Sayedee against the judgement of the country's International Crimes Tribunal, given in February 2013, which sentenced him to death for offences involving crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Independence War of Bangladesh.

You will need to refresh your page to see new posts

--------------------

WEDNESDAY 17 SEPTEMBER

11.30 am: Sayedee' death sentence in two cases commuted, and reduced to imprisonment
The appellate division ruled the following
Charge 6   -  acquitted
Charge 7   -  sentenced to ten years imprisonment (previously no sentence)
Charge 8   -  one part acquitted (by majority), death sentence reduced to 12 years imprisonment
Charge 10 -  death sentence, reduced to life imprisonment
Charge 11 -  acquitted
Charge 14 -  acquitted
Charge 16 -  imprisonment for life (previously no sentence)
Charge 19 -  imprisonment for life (previously no sentence)

In summary:
- In relation the two charges where he had a death sentence, one was commuted to a life sentence and the other was commuted to 12 years imprisonment
- in three other charges, where he had received no sentence, he was acquitted
- in three other charges, where he had received no sentence he received in relation to two of them a life sentence, and in the other a sentence of ten years imprisonment


8.30 am: Off to court
Will update as soon as the order is read out in court

8.00 am: Right of review - a matter of delay
Since it is extremely unlikely that the same judges of the appellate division would agree to overturn a decision on the basis of an application to review its decision (see below), the issue of the right to review really has little impact on the proceedings other than providing Sayedee some additional time before he is hanged. This is assuming of course that the appellate division upholds the tribunal's sentence.

7.45 am: Current Law minister supported right of accused's 'right of review' at time of Molla
Interestingly, at the time of the Molla review application, the current law minister, Anisul Huq, was not part of the government. He was quoted at the time as stating:  “Although there is no provision for filing a review petition in the ICT Act, a convicted person’s fundamental and Constitutional rights allow him to file a review petition with the apex court.”

7.40 am: Do the defence have a 'right of review'?
Assuming the appeal decision does not go the way of the defense, the question arises whether or not Sayedee lawyers have a right to seek a review of the decision.

Article 105 of the constitution sets out the power of the appellate division to review its judgment. This Article states:

The Appellate Division shall have power, subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament and of any rules made by that division to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. 

Order 26 of the Appellate Division rules sets out the procedure for this.

1. Subject to the law and the practice of the Court, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of a party to a proceeding, review its judgment or order in a Civil proceeding on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XL VII, rule 1 of the 'Code of Civil Procedure and in a Criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (emphasis added)
2. Applications for review shall be filed in the Registry within thirty days after pronouncement of the judgment, or, as the case may be, the making of the order, which is sought to be reviewed. The applicant shall, after filing the application {or review, forthwith give notice thereof to the other party and endorse a copy of such notice to the Registry.
3. Every application for review shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order complained of and when the application proceeds on the ground of a discovery of fresh evidence certified copies of the documents, if any relied upon, shall be annexed to the application, together with an affidavit setting forth the circumstances under which such discovery has been made.
4. No such application shall be entertained unless it is signed by a Senior Advocate who, in this behalf: shall not be governed by the restrictions contained in clause 2 of the First Schedule to these rules.
5. The Senior Advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon which the prayer for review is based, and shall add a certificate to the effect, that consistently with the law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case. The certificate shall be in the form of a reasoned opinion.
6. Except with the special leave of the Court, no application for review shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review.
7. As far as practicable the application for review shall be posted before the aame Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. (emphasis added)
8.. After the final disposal of the first application for review no subsequent application for review shall lie to the Court and consequently shall not be entertained by the Registry.
9. No application for review shall be entertained unless party seeking review furnishes a cash security of [Tk.lO,OOO], which shall be liable to be forfeited [if the review petition] is dismissed. (emphasis added)

The following should be noted about the 'review':

- there are very limited grounds that can allow a review of an appellate division decision be successful: there has to be an 'error apparent on the face of the record' which in case law is drawn very narrowly. 

- it is not an appeal. It is heard by the same bench of judges that made the order which is in question. So the applicant is asking the same set of judges to accept that they made a serious error! As one cam imagine, successful appellate division reviews are therefore very uncommon. 

- The International Crimes Tribunal gave itself the power to review its decisions and although it has dealt with dozens and dozens of applications for review, I am not aware of a single decision that was fully overturned.

In the Molla case (see below at Tuesday 11.25 pm), the defence argued that the accused had a right to review under article 105, but the attorney general argued that it did not - claiming that the limits of the an accused's right to appeal are set out in the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973, due to Article 47(3) of the constitution which precludes a person accused of international crimes from seeking any constitutional remedy.

In the Molla case, the appellate division did not clarify whether there was a right to review or not - dismissing the review application without passing a reasoned order.

7.20 am: Good morning
In less than a couple of hours the appellate division should announce whether or not it has upheld the appeal of Delwar Hossain Sayedee against the decision of the International Crimes Tribunal which sentenced him to death for two offences involving crimes against humanity in the 1971 Independence war of Bangladesh or whether it has upheld the decision.

To see details of the two offenses for which Sayedee is facing a death penalty, see the sequence of posts below from 00:20 am earlier today

01:20 am: Goodnight
This will continue later in the morning .....

01:00 am: The defence arguments on death penalty conviction - charges 8 and 10
Earlier (at 00:30 am), the relevant extracts of the tribunal judgement on charge no 8 and 10 were set out - the ones where Sayedee received a death penalty. So, what is the defence response to these conclusions? Below are the extracts from the defence's appeal petition, filed before the appellate division, which seems to summarise the key arguments.

"In Charge - 8 regarding fire, damaging and looting Manik Poshari and his brothers’ houses; abducting and killing Ibrahim Kutti; abducting and torturing Mofiz Uddin and damaging and looting goods in Hindu houses at 3.00 pm on 8th May 1971 in Parerhat Bondor the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PWs 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and DWs 2, 15 and 17 and Defence Exhibit – V & AJ.  

But the Tribunal did not at all consider that there is no evidence before the Tribunal on damaging and looting goods in Hindu houses on 8th May 1971. The Tribunal should have considered that though many of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have witnessed part of the alleged incident of Charge - 8, none of them complained about this incident in the last 40 years.  

The Tribunal did not consider material contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also that these witnesses are sufficiently discredited in cross examination.  

The Tribunal also did not consider the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding time, place and manner of the alleged occurrence.  

The Tribunal surprisingly did not at all consider the Defence Exhibit No – ‘A’ which is certified copy of the Complaint filed by wife of Ibrahim Kutti on 16th July 1972 (i.e. immediate after the liberation war) where she complained that Ibrahim Kutti was killed five months later, on 1st October 1971, on a different place by 12 listed persons with Pakistani Army. She did not complain against the Appellant. It is difficult to understand why the Tribunal overlooked Exhibit – A which is the most authentic evidence to adjudicate on Charge 8 and sufficient to show that all the prosecution witnesses supporting Charge 8 were lying.  

The Tribunal also did not consider that material contradictions between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their previous statements recorded by Judicial Magistrate in the case filed by PW -6 before the Pirojpur (Exhibits – W to W-4).  

Though the tribunal considered the evidence of DWs 2, 15 and 17 to find the Appellant of guilty of Charge 8 the Tribunal should have considered that these witnesses vehemently stated that the Appellant was not involved in any such incident. The Tribunal should have considered that Defence Exhibit – V & AJ do not in any way incriminate the Appellant and in fact support his innocence.  

It is therefore submitted that in view of the evidence on record the finding of guilt in Charge – 8 is not only absurd but also manifestly perverse and does not sustain in law and fact."  

And in relation to charge 10

"In Charge - 10 regarding burning 25 Hindu House of Village Umedpur and killing Bishabali at 10.00 am on 2nd June 1971 the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 9. But the Tribunal did not at all consider that the PW-1 is not at all reliable as he claimed that he was informed about arrival of the Pakistani from one Mr. Khalilur Rahman who evidently not even born at that time. It is also evident on record that PWs 1 and 5 were minor at that time. In Charge 9 the Tribunal disbelieved PW 14 for being minor. The Tribunal did not explain why PWs 1 and 5 can be believed though they were minor at the relevant time.  

The Tribunal also did not consider that in his earlier report PW-1 stated that Bishabali was killed in Pirojpur in the bank of river Boleshwar which contradicts his evidence.
The Tribunal did not consider material contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also that these witnesses are sufficiently discredited in cross examination.  

The Tribunal also did not consider that the prosecution witnesses supporting this charge are merely chance witnesses and the prosecution did not bring any witness from Umedpur village though the Investigation Officer (PW28) admitted that many of the victim families are still living there.  

The Tribunal should have considered that the victim Bishabali’s brother Mr. Shukharanjan Bali was an eye witnesses and the law enforcing agencies abducted him from the tribunal premises so that he cannot give evidence for the Appellant.  

The Tribunal did not consider the defence witness and documents which conclusively show that the Appellant was not at all involved in the alleged incident of Charge 10. It is therefore submitted that in view of the evidence on record the finding of guilt in Charge – 10 is not only absurd but also manifestly perverse and does not sustain in law and fact."

00:30 am: Tribunal judgement decision on count 8
The allegation relating to count no 8 (for which Sayedee was given the death penalty, along with count no 10) was set out earlier in this post (see: 00:20 am). Extracted below are the relevant paragraphs from the Tribunal judgement on the evidence supporting the charge. (You can read and download the full trial judgment from here)

Apologies for the length of this extract!

Discussion on evidence 141. P.W. 2 Ruhul Amin Nobin has deposed that on 8th May, 1971, Pakistani Army along with the members of Razakar bahini and Peace Committee looted away goods of 7/8 houses including the houses of Raisuddin Posari, Helaluddin Posari, Saizuddin Posari and Manik Posari of villages Baduria and Chitholia, situated at the eastern side of Parerhat Bandar. He further deposed that after looting those houses were burnt to ashes. He also testified that Peace Committee and Razakar Bahini were formed at Parerhat under the leadership of accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and others. He identified the accused in the dock. 142. P.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that on 7th May, 1971 at about 9.00/9.30 a.m. Pakistani Army came to Parerhat and then at about 12.00/1.00 p.m. on that date they set up a camp at Parerhat school. He denied the defence suggestions that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and others did not form Peace Committee at Parerhat and that the accused was not in the area of Parerhat or Pirojpur on May 7, 8 and middle of June, 1971.

143. P.W.4 Sultan Ahmed Howlader has deposed that perhaps on 8th May at about 2.30 p.m/3.00 p.m. he heard a hue and cry coming from the house of Manik Posari and, he also saw there the flame of fire. He further deposed that he also saw 15/20 houses including the houses of Manik Posari, Nurul Islam Khan, Raisuddin Posari, Saijuddin Posari were burning and, at that time he saw that the Pakistani Army and members of Razakar bahini including accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi were taking away Mofizuddin and Ibrahim alias Kutti, a cousin and an employee respectively of said Manik Posari, towards Parerhat. He also deposed that Pakistani Army and the Rajakars after having arrived at the thanaghat he noticed that the accused talked something to Pakistani Army and then he (P.W.4) heard heavy gun-shot and outery and, on the following day 69 he heard that Pakistani Army and Rajakars had killed said Ibrahim alias Kutti by gun-shot and his dead body was thrown into water, then said Mofizuddin was taken to Army camp and was tortured therein and at night Mofizuddin managed to flee away from the said camp. He identified the accused in the dock.

144. P.W.4 in his cross-examination, denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and other members of Razakar bahini took away Mofiz, and Ibrahim alias Kutti, to thanaghat and thereafter the accused talked to Pakistani Army and heard a gun-shot. He stated in cross-examination that he met Mofiz when he came back on being escaped from the camp but he saw mark of injuries on his person.

145. P.W. 6 Manik Posari has deposed that during Liberation War, 1971, accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi formed Peace Committee at Parerhat with anti-Liberation persons and similarly Razakar Bahini was also formed with them. He further deposed that on 8th May, 1971, Pakistani Army along with the accused and other Rajakars came to their house and caught hold of his cousin Mofizuddin and domestic help Ibrahim alias Kutti and thereafter they looted away valuables from their house. He also saw the accused at whose instruction Razakars by pouring kerosene oil burnt their five houses to ashes; thereafter they took away said Mofizuddin and Ibrahim alias Kutti tied with ropes towards the Army camp at Parerhat and then Pakistani Army having been instigated by the accused one Shekander Sikder killed said Ibrahim alias Kutti by gun-shot at the bottom of a bridge and then threw his dead body into the 70 river. He also deposed that thereafter they took said Mofizuddin to Army camp and tortured him therein and in the night Mofizuddin managed to flee away from the Army camp to his house having marks of torture on his person. He identified the accused in the dock.

146. P.W.6 stated in his cross-examination that Ibrahim alias Kutti had been working in his house since 3/4 years before he was caught hold of by Pakistani Army and his father’s name was Gafur Sheikh who belongs to village Baduria. He further stated that said Kutti was married and perhaps he had 2/1 children. He denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi along with members of Peace Committee and Rajakars looted his house and burnt five houses after pouring kerosene oil.

147. P.W.7 Md. Mofizuddin Posari has deposed that on 8th May, 1971, at around 10.00/11.00 a.m., he and Ibrahim alias Kutti saw that 12/14 Pakistani Army along with 20/22 Razakars including accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi were coming towards the house of one Saijuddin Posari and then he and Kutti tried to flee away but Pakistani Army and Rajakars caught hold of them and then by pouring kerosene oil burnt five houses to ashes and they also looted the goods of those houses. He further testified that Pakistani Army and said Rajakars tied them with rope and then they proceeded towards Parerhat camp and on the way they killed Ibrahim alias Kutti by gun-shot; thereafter they took him to Parerhat camp and tortured him therein. He also testified that in the night he managed to escape from the camp to his house and narrated the occurrence to Manik Posari and others. He claimed to be an eye witness of the said occurrence. He identified the accused in the dock.

148. P.W.7 stated in his cross-examination that before independence of the country, he used to work and stay in the house of his cousin Manik Posari. He further stated that Ibrahim alias Kutti had been working in the house of Manik Posari before he started working therein and he and Ibrahim alias Kutti belonged to same village and Ibrahim alias Kutti was married. He denied the defence suggestions that he was not a worker of the house of Manik Posari and he has deposed falsely as being tutored.

149. P.W.8 Md. Mostafa Howlader has deposed that on 8th May, 1971, 15/16 Pakistani Army along with 30/35 Rajakars including accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi went to the house of Saijuddin and burnt his five houses after having looted the goods of those houses and then they caught hold of Mofizuddin Posari and Ibrahim alias Kutti therefrom and tied them with a rope and then they killed Kutti by gun-shot and dumped his dead body near a bridge and thereafter they took Mofizuddin to Rajakar camp. He identified the accused in the dock.

150. P.W.8 stated in his cross-examination that he knew Ibrahim alias Kutti since 2/1 year before the occurrence of his killing and he heard that said Kutti was a worker of the house of Saijuddin Posari (father of Manik Posari) and his father’s name was Gafur Sheikh and his dead body was not found. He further stated that he knew Mofizuddin Posari since 2/1 year before 1971 and he also worked in the house of Saijuddin Posari. He also stated in his cross72 examination that he knew accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi since 2/3 years before 1971. He denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely that Ibrahim alias Kutti after having been taken from the house of Manik Posari he was killed by gun-shot and his dead body was thrown into a ‘Khal’.

151. P.W. 9 Md. Altaf Hossain has deposed that on 7th May, 1971, Pakistani Army came to Parerhat and, 6/7 days prior to their arrival, a Peace Committee was formed at Parerhat with accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and others and thereafter the accused himself also formed there a Razakar bahini with the members of the Peace Committee. He further testified that after having been formed the said Peace Committee and Razakar bahini, about 30/35 shops and houses of Parerhat were looted. He also deposed that all the offences e.g. arson, looting, rape, etc. were committed at Parerhat and nearby places under the leadership of the accused. He identified the accused in the dock.

152. P.W.9 stated in his cross-examination that Razakar bahini was formed 2/3 days after the Peace Committee had been formed and that about 30/35 houses and shops were looted. He denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely that looting, arson and rape were committed in Hindus’ houses of Parerhat and nearby places under the leadership of accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. He also denied the defence suggestion that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was not in the area of Pirojpur since before starting of Liberation War upto middle of July, 1971.

153. P.W. 10 Basudev Mistri has testified that during Liberation War, 1971 he along with his father used to work as labourers in the house of Manik Posari that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and others formed a Razakar bahini and that on 8th May, 1971 he saw that Pakistani Army and Rajakar bahini came to the house of Manik Posari (P.W.6) and caught hold of Ibrahim alias Kutti and Mofizuddin therefrom and then looted away the goods of the house of Manik Posari and thereafter the accused and other Rajakars burnt that house. He also saw that Pakistani Army and Rajakars took Ibrahim alias Kutti and Mofizuddin to a bridge and killed Ibrahim alias Kutti there. He further deposed that they tortured Mofizuddin in the Rajakar camp after having taken him there but he managed to flee away from Razakar camp and narrated the occurrence to others. He identified the accused in the dock.

154. P.W.10 stated in his cross-examination that on the date of occurrence Razakars burnt the house of Manik Posari and they caught hold of Ibrahim alias Kutti and Mofizuddin from the house of Manik Posari. He denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely against accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi.

155. P.W. 11 Abdul Jalil Sheikh has testified that on 8th May, 1971 he saw that some Rajakars including accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi along with 10/15 Pakistani Army having come to their village Chitholia went to the house of Manik Posari and then the accused along with two other Rajakars caught hold of Kutti and Mofizuddin therefrom and tied them with rope and then they looted the valuables of that house and, thereafter they having poured kerosene oil burnt that house. He further stated that the said Razakars and Pakistani Army having taken Kutti and Mofizuddin with them left for bazar and after 74 crossing the bridge Pakistani Army killed Kutti by gun-shot at the thanaghat. He further deposed that the Razakars and Pakistani Army along with Mofizuddin went towards the camp through the bazar. He identified the accused in the dock.

156. P.W.11 stated in his cross-examination that Manik Posari is his cousin and Mofizuddin Posari is the husband of his cousin (sister). He further stated in cross-examination that Ibrahim alias Kutti came to the house of Manik Posari one year before Liberation War and since then he knew him. He denied the defence suggestions that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was never a Razakar and he deposed falsely against the accused.

157. P.W. 12 Alhaj A.K.M.A. Awal alias Saidur Rahman (M.P) has deposed that at the time of Liberation War, 1971, Pakistani Army and Rajakars burnt houses of village Baduria and the houses of Nurul Islam, Raisuddin Posari, Saijuddin Posari and Manik Posari of village Chitholia including the houses of Hindu community. He further deposed that at the time of said occurrence accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was present as one of the members of the Razakar team. He identified the accused in the dock.

158. D.W.2 Abdur Razzak Akand has stated in cross-examination that during War of Liberation Razakars used to plunder goods and he heard that Razakars set fire in the village of Hoglabunia mainly on the houses of Hindu Community, and freedom-fighters, and accordingly set fire on the house of freedom-fighter Khasru of Shankarpasha and another house besides it. He alsostated in cross-examination that there was a camp of Rajakars at Parerhat and Pakistani Army used to come there.

159. D.W.13 Masood Sayeedi has stated that he is a son of accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. He exhibited before the Tribunal the photo copy of the 8th volume of the book “XXX” edited by Hasan Hafizur Rahman which was marked as Ext. V. 160.

D.W.13 stated in his cross-examination that it has been described in Ext.V that during Liberation War many men and women became the victims of killing, rape, looting, etc. committed by Pakistani Army, Peace Committee and Razakars. He also stated that it has also been described in the book, Ext. AJ (exhibited by the defence) “XXX” that during Liberation War, killing of people, rape, looting, arson, etc. were committed by Pakistan Army, Peace Committee and Razakars in the district of Pirojpur.

161. D.W.15 Abdus Salam Hawlader has stated that Pakistani Army with the co-operation of those people burnt the house of his uncle Nuru Khan (Nurul Islam Khan) and his said uncle was a leader of Awami League and, after 15/20 minutes Pakistani Army went to village of Chitholia and after sometime they came to know that the houses of Saijuddin and Raisuddin of village Chitholia were set on fire.

162. D.W.17 Gonesh Chandra Shaha has stated in his cross-examination that he heard that Rajakars used to assist Pakistani Army by catching hold of people and killed them.

Evaluation of Evidence and findings:  

163. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove the charge No. 8 relating to killing of Kutti and setting fire on the houses of Hindu Community of Parerhart areas under Pirojpur police station made by Pakistani Army and local Razakers headed by accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi. Upon critical analysis of the evidence adduced by P.W Nos.2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 it is found that on 8 May,1971, the Pakistani Army along with a good number of Razakars including accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi came to the house of Manik Posari from where they caught victim Ibrahim alias Kutti, and Mofizuddin Posari. It is evident that on that day Pak-Army and local Razakars looted goods from different houses and set fire on the houses of Raisuddin Posari, Helaluddin Posari, Saizuddin Posari and Manik Posari, Nurul Islam Khan and others of village Baduria and Chitholia adjacent to Parerhat Bandar. It is evident from the evidence educed by aforesaid 9 witnesses that on seeding Pakistani Army and Razakers while Ibrahim alias Kutti and Mofizuddin Posari (P.W-7) tried to flee away then the Razakars caught hold of them and fastened their hands by a rope and dragged them towards Parerhat Razakars Camp, on the way, near a bridge, Pakistani Army killed Ibrahim Kutti by gun shot and taking Mofizuddin to the Camp tortured upon him but in the night he managed to escape from the clutches of Razakars. P.W-7 Mofizuddin Posari is the eye witness of the killing of Ibrahim Kutti and he luckily saved his life by escaping from Razakar Camp. He categorically testified that accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi as a member of Razakar Bahini caught them at crime site and ultimately 77 Ibrahim was killed by Pak-Army, under the above circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve evidence of P.W-7 as to murder of Kutti, destruction of houses of civilians in a large scale by setting fire which constitute crimes against Humanity.

00:30 am: Tribunal Judgement decision on count 10
The allegation relating to count no 10 (for which Sayedee was given the death penalty, along with count no 8) was set out earlier in this post (see: 00:20 am). Extracted below are the relevant paragraphs from the Tribunal judgement on the evidence supporting the charge.

Discussion on evidence:
169. P.W. 1 Md. Mahbubul Alam Howlader has deposed that he heard from people that on 2nd June, 1971 at about 10.00 a.m. accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi along with some other members of Peace Committee and Razakar bahini and also Pakistani Army raided the Hindu para of his village Umedpur and looted the valuables of 25/30 houses of that para and then burnt those houses to ashes. He further deposed that house owners namely, Chittarangan Talukder, Johon Talukder, Bisabali , Sukub Ali, Onil Mondal and others sustained loss of about 50 lac taka for complete destruction of their houses. He stated that Bisabali was caught and tortured and after fastening him with a coconut tree, he was shot dead by a Razakar at the insistence of accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi. He identified the accused in the dock.

170. P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied the defence suggestions that Bisabali was not tortured after having been tied with a coconut tree and that Bisabali was not shot dead while he was tied with coconut tree and that Pakistani Army having abducted Bisabali took him to the bank of Baleshwar 80 river and killed him there by gun-shot. He also denied the defence suggestions that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was not present at the time of looting and arson of 25/30 houses of Hindu Para and killing of Bisabali and was not involved in any way with the alleged occurrence.

171. P.W. 5 Md. Mahtabuddin Howlader has deposed that on 2nd June, 1971, at about 10.00/10.30 a.m. while he was going to Parerhat he saw that Pakistani Army along with some members of Peace Committee including accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and armed Razakars raided the Hindu para of village Umedpur and looted goods from the houses of that para and burnt 20/22 houses and after having tied one Bisabali with a coconut tree tortured him and thereafter Bisabali was killed by Rajakars at the instigation of the accused. He identified the accused in the dock.

172. P.W.5 in his cross-examination denied the defence suggestions that he has deposed falsely that on 2nd June, 1971 at about 10.00/10.30 a.m.while was going to Parerhat he saw Pakistani Army along with accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, members of Peace Committee and armed Rajakars to enter into Hindu para of Umedpur and then he having hidden himself in a jungle, situated at southern side of Hindu para, saw them to loot goods of the houses of Anil Mondol, Nolita Bali, Horendra Nath Chowkrabarti, Mukem Chowkrabarti, Satish Bala, Chitta Talukder, Robi Talukder and then to set fire on 20/22 houses of that Hindu para. He also denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely that accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi after saying something in 81 Urdu one Rajakar killed Bisabali by gun-shot when he was tied with a coconut tree.

173. P.W. 9 Md. Altaf Hossain Howlader has deposed that on 2nd June, 1971 he went to his maternal uncle’s house at village Umedpur and on that date at about 10.00/10.30 a.m. he saw from a hidden place that Pakistani Army along with accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and some other Razakars raided the Hindu para of village Umedpur and looted goods from the houses of that para and burnt 18/20 houses and after having tied one Bisabali with a coconut tree tortured him and thereafter one Rajakar killed him by gun-shot at the direction of the accused. He identified the accused in the dock.

174. P.W.9 in his cross-examination denied the defence suggestions that he has deposed falsely that on 2nd June he went to his maternal uncle’s house and on the way he saw accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi along with Rajakars to enter into Hindu para of Umedpur and to set fire on 18/20 houses of that para. He also denied the defence suggestions that he has deposed falsely that Razakars tortured one Bisabali while he was tied with a tree, then by the order of the accused one Razakar killed him by gun-shot.

Evaluation of evidence and findings: 

175. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses to prove charge No.10 relating to killing of Bisabali and burning of 25 houses of Hindu para of village Umedpur by Pakistani Army wtih the assistance of accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi and his associates. Upon critical analysis of the evidence adduced by P.W. Nos.1,5 and9 it is found that on 02.06.1971, Pakistani Army accompanied 82 with local Razakars including accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi attacked Hindu para of village Umedpur and after looting away valuables therefrom, they set fire on about 25 dwelling houses of unarmed civilians. It is evident that one civilian named Bisabali was caught and tortured by Razakars, thereafter victim Basabali was fastened with a co-conut tree and he was shot dead by a Razakar at the insistence of accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi, P.W-5 Mahtabuddin Howlader and P.W-9 Altab Hossain Howlader have proved the occurrance of burning dwelling houses of unarmed vivilians of Hindu para as well as killing of Bisabali at the insistence of the accused as eye witness of the occurrances. The manner of setting fire on the houses of unarmed civilians gives sufficient indication that the perpetrators in a planned way burnt a Hindu para with intent to cause large scale devestation. It is also evidently revealed that the accused knowingly contributed and facilitated in the commission of killling of Biasbali and the act of burning huge number of dwelling houses by his presence and participation is considered as persecutioin. It is well proved that the accused was involved with the commission of murder and persecution within the purview of crimes against Humanity.

00:20 am: The two death penalty counts
As noted below, Sayedee was sentenced to death on two counts - though he was convicted in total of 6 other offenses (for which the judgement gave no sentence). Below are the allegations for the two counts, as set out in the judgment, for which he was given the death penalty

Count 8: 'Killing of Kutti and setting fire on the houses of Hindu Community of Parerhat area)'

'140: That on 8th May, 1971 at about 3.00 p.m. under the leadership of accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi and his accomplices accompanied with Pakistani Army raided the house of Manik Posari of village-Chitholia under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and caught his brother Mofizuddin and one Ibrahim @ Kutti therefrom. At his instance other accomplices after pouring kerosene oil on five houses, those were burnt to ashes causing a great havoc. On the way to Army Camp, the accused instigated Pakistani Army who killed Ibrahim @ Kutti by gun-shot and the dead body was dumped near a bridge, then Mofiz was taken to Army Camp and was tortured. Thereafter, the accused and others set fire on the houses of Hindu Community at Parerhat Bandar causing huge devastations. The acts of looting goods and setting fire on dwelling houses are considered as persecution as crimes against Humanity on religious ground. The accused directly participated in the occurrences of abduction, murder and persecution which are identified as crimes against Humanity.'

Count 10: 'Killing of Bisabali and burning 24 houses of Hindu para of village Umedpur'

168. That on the same day i.e. 02.06.1971 at about 10.00 a.m. under the leadership of accused Delowar Hossain Sayeedi with his armed associates accompanied with Pakistani Army raided the Hindu Para of village-Umedpur under Indurkani Police Station the accused burnt 25 houses including houses 79 of Chitta Ranjan Talukder, Jahar Talukder, Horen Tagore, Anil Mondol, Bisabali, Sukabali, Satish Bala and others. At one stage Bisabali was tied to a coconut tree and at his insistence Bisabali was shot to dead by his accomplice. The act of burning dwelling houses of unarmed civilians is considered as persecution. The accused directly participated in the acts of burning houses and killing of Bisabali which is persecution and murder within the purview of crimes against Humanity. 

TUESDAY 16 SEPTEMBER

11.35 pm: Judgement delivered on 28 February 2013
You can read and download the full trial judgment from here

11.25 pm: What happened in the case of Abdul Quader Molla
Tomorrow's judgment by the appellate division will be its second regarding an appeal from the International Crimes Tribunal. The first one involved Abdul Quader Mollah - and it might be worthwhile looking at what happened in that case.

- On 5 February 2013, Molla was convicted by the International Crimes Tribunal of five out of six charges involving crimes against humanity and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Following large protests at Shahbag in Dhaka against the failure of the court to impose a death sentence, the government changed the law allowed the prosecution to appeal against a lenient sentence,
- On 17 September, the appellate division passed a 'short order' in which it ruled that, in relation to one offence, Molla should be given the death penalty.
- On 5 December, the appellate division judges signed the full written judgement.
- In the evening of 10 December, the family of Molla was brought to the jail to say goodbye to him for the last time, but the defence lawyers managed to stay the hanging until the morning when a bench of the appellate division would hear arguments
- On 11/12 December, the defence argued that the accused had a right to seek a review of the judgment, and set out why the appeal judgement should be put to one side. The appellate division dismissed the arguments, without passing any reasoned order.
- On 12 December, the execution took place.

You can read about the detail of events on 10/11/12 of December 2013 on this rolling blog published at the time

10.25 pm: What will happen tomorrow
It is likely that the court will pass a 'short' order - that is to say it will read out the operative part of its decision.

The short order could either:
(a) allow the defence appeal - in which case Sayedee would be wholly acquitted on all charges
(b) dismiss the defence appeal - in which case Sayedee's death sentence on two charges would be upheld.
(c) partly allow the defence appeal, and set out, those charges where the appeal has been allowed.

The court may also, possibly have a written judgment ready, in which case this would be made available (though unlikely to be read out).

Assuming the defence lose the appeal at least in relation to one of the two charges on which Sayedee has been sentenced to death (so that the death penalty stands), what happens next?

If the court has a written judgement ready, then the jail authorities have the power to put Sayedee to death - though this is possibly subject to the right of the defence to seek a review application of the judgement (more about this later). If the court does not allow a review application to be filed, then Sayedee can could be hung within a few days (assuming the jail code does not apply).

If there is no written judgement, it seems to be the case that no death penalty could be imposed until this had been completed.

9.45 pm: Index of proceedings
The trial of Delwar Hossain Sayedee was the first to start at the International Crimes Tribunal, and this blog covered it closely. In the course of the next 24 hours different parts of the proceedings are likely to be referred to, but for those who want to read about the pre-trial proceedings, the witness evidence etc in detail, you can look at these two pages which provide indexes of the proceedings, and links to all the relevant pages

- Pre-trial and trial proceedings (witnesses etc)

- Post-witness trial proceedings (closing arguments, re-trial applications, Skype scandal etc)

9.30 pm: Cause list
Item number 1 on Wednesdays' cause list for one of the benches of Appellate Division is the matter of the appeal regarding Delwar Hossain Sayedee's conviction for crimes against humanity during the 1971 war.

The court begins around 9 am, and this will be the first matter dealt with.

Sayedee was convicted by the International Crimes Tribunal for 8 out of the 20 offenses for which he was originally charged. In relation to two of these convictions, he received a death penalty; the court did not impose any sentence for the other six convictions.

The court will decide on:
(a) the defence appeal that  Sayedee should be acquitted on all charges
(b) the prosecution appeal that the tribunal should have sentenced Sayedee in relation to all the convictions imposing a death penalty for all counts.