12 Jul 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 29

After the tribunal read out the order relating to 19(2), cross-examination of Investigation Officer in the Sayedee case continued, conducted by the defence lawyer Mizanul Islam. This continued from this day.

Defence: What is the name of the present Chairman of Umedpur?

Witness: It in not in my note.

Defence: Whose house is situated in the east side of the “A” mark house?

Witness: Whether there is any house or not, I cannot say.

Defence: How far a distance is between the houses of Anil Chandra Mondol and Harekrisno Mondol?

Witness: It is not in my note, so I cannot tell it.

Defence: Whether there is any house at the south side of the house of Anil Mondol?

Witness: Yes, there are some houses but the number of houses I cannot say.

Defence: How long a distance by road was from the house of Anil Chandra Mondol?

Witness: I cannot say as it is not in my sketch.

Defence: What is situated just opposite of the west side of the road from the A to H marked houses?

Witness: At the west side of the road, there was house of Kashem Hawlader is situated.

Defence: Did you have any idea whether there is any other houses or not?

Witness: No.

Defence: What is situated in north side of the place marked as “A”?

Witness: There is Umedpur Canel.

Defence: Whether this side is under the possession of Umedpru Hindu area or not?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Bimol Bala daughter of Satis Bala is the resident of “F” marked house. Would you please tell us about his profession?

Witness: I have no idea about his profession.

Defence: Did you meet with him during the investigation?

Witness: I cannot say it as it is not in my record.

Defence: Did you go to his house?

Witness: I cannot say as it is not in my note.

Defence: Since you did not go to his house, so it not possible for you to say whether his mother is alive or not?

Witness: No, his mother is alive.

Defence: Did you give any notice to Bimal Bala , his mother and his father to give their deposition in presence of you?

Witness: No.

Defence: “G” marked house owned by the Jibon son of Johor Talukder was not the witness of this case.

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether his mother is alive or not?

Witness: Yes, his mother is alive.

Defence: Did you issue any notice to them for giving deposition.

Witness: No, I did not but informed them about being present in front of me.

Defence: Did you give any notice towards the people of Umedpur Hindu area to give their deposition who knows about facts of the Liberation war

Witness: I did not do it but I requested all of the persons having knowledge of liberation war to be present.

Defence: You have requested all through whom?

Witness: Through Sukhranjan Bali and Mahbubul Hawlader.

Defence: When did you go to the Umedpur for the first time.

Witness: On 20. 08. 2010.

Defence: Did you inform it to the Sukharanjan Bali and Mahbuul Alam the day when you had gone or before that?

Witness: I have said it to the Mahbubul Hawlader before that date.

Defence: When?

Witness: On 15. 08. 2010. I have told him over phone. Then after going to Umedpur on 20.08.2010, I have said it the Sukharanjan Bali to call upon all those persons who are acquainting with the facts of the Liberation war.

Defence: When did you reach there?

Witness: At 10:30am.

Defence: How long you were there?

Witness: Till 12:30pm.

Defence: Where did you stay during the investigation?

Witness: Basically, I did not stay anywhere specifically. Firstly I had gone to the house of Sukhranjan Bali and then visited each and every house of Hindu area to takes notes and sketch map.

Defence: Where did you make the sketch map?

Witness: I took the rough notes and then prepared finally at my office.

Defence: Where was the temporary office of the Investigation agency?

Witness: It was in the circuit house.

Defence: Statement of how many persons has been recorded by you at that very day?

Witness: I have asked them preliminary question and nothing had been recorded there. Basically their statement was not recorded at Umedpur village; their statement has been recorded on Tengrakgli village at that day,

Defence: How many people’s statement has been recorded at Tengrakhali Village?

Witness: Statement of Sukharanjan Bali and Mukunda Chakrabarti alias Mukim Thakur.

Defence: Where was the house of Anil Chandra Mondol situated?

Witness: At Umedpur Village.

Defence: Where did you record the statement of Anil Chandra Mondol?

Witness: On 19.08.2010 in Rajlokkhi High School.

Defence: You have exhibited on exhibit number 259 the statement of Anil Chandra Mondol which was recorded on 20. 08.12. (date has been shown after taking the document from the Tribunal chair)

There is variance of recording date of the statement of Anil Chandra Mondol between the documents in the hands of the investigation officer and the documents before the judges. Then Tribunal member said it is nothing but a mistake but defence counsels Mizanul Islam said “yes my lord, it is our duty to identify these faults”

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Your signature is exhibited on exhibit number 259/1 and the date is 20. 08.10.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When did you reach Tengrakhali Village and how long you have stayed there?

Witness: I have stayed there from 12:45 to 16:45pm.

Defence: Did you go to any other places?

Witness: I went to different places like Parerhaat Police camp, Parer Haat Bazar.

Defence: Did you go Tengrakhali Village before 20. 08. 10.

Witness: Yes, on 19. 08. 10 I went there at 13:45pm.

Defence: How long have you stayed there?

Witness: I was there till 15:00pm.

Defence: Then where did you go?

Witness: Then I came to Razlokkho High School and I was there from 15:30 to 21:00.

Defence: In the Index no. 39 (b), Mukim Thakur father of Shekhor was indicated as death person and there is also a signature of yours.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you meet with the owner “H” marked house Harekrishno?

Witness: It is not in my note.

Defence: Did you meet with the wife of Shudangshu Talukder?

Witness: It is not in my note.

Defence: House of Anil Chandra Shorma is exhibited on Exhibit number 259, please tell us whether the house of Anil Chandra Mondol included among these 25 houses which were looted and burnt?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Is there any thing which is stated by Anil Chandra that his house is looted or burnt during the Liberation War?

Witness: No, but he said that house of the Hindu People were looted.

Defence: During 1971 whether there were any Hindu areas other than Umedpur Hindu area?

Witness: Yes, other than Umedpur Hindu area, there are other areas also.

Defence: It is exhibited in exhibit no. 25 that after looting the house of Hindu area Mr. Sayedee had taken away these looted things in his in laws house.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In the statement of Anil Chandra Mondol, he never pronounced the name of village “Umedpur”

Witness: He said that “My home town” and it is very much clear that his permanent address is Umedpur.

Defence: Whether he pronounced any thing in his statement that “My house was looted and set on fire during the liberation war”

Witness: No.

Defence: You have stated about 19 persons in Umedpur. Would you please tell us whether the house of these 19 persons were looted or set on fire or not?

Witness: No, specifically no ones name is mentioned.

Then the defence counsels ask some questions from the multi-media video show “Ekusher Chokh” programme.

Defence: Please tell us, whether the interview of Raghunath has been taken in Ragunath’s house or not?

Witness: Basically, his interview has been taken in Manikposhari’s house. (This statement has been recorded with the objection of prosecution counsels).

Then the court was adjourned.

2 July 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 27

Tribunal One
After the application relating to obtaining a copy of the investigation agency report on the witnesses relating to section 19(2) application made by the prosecution, the cross examination of Helal Uddin, the investigation officer in the Sayedee case continued from 26 June.

Defence: Whether the name of Mr. Mojid’s son is Ilias?

Witness: Yes. Mr. Baten Hawladar his elder paternal uncle.

Defence: What was the profession of Mr. Mojid Hawladar in 1971?

Witness: It has not been stated in my note.

Defence: What was the profession of Mr. Mahbubul Alam Hawladar at 1971?

Witness: It is not in my note.

Defence: What was the profession of Mr. Abdul Baten at 1971?

Witness: It has not been stated in my note.

Defence: Whether there is any house at the north side of the “A, B, D, E, F” marked house at the sketch map [exhibit-42]?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the closest most house located at the north side of the “A, B, D, E, F” marked house at the sketch map [exhibit-42]?

Witness: There is a pond right at the north side there after there is a house of Late Hemor Sordar.

Defence: From your sketch map, it is visible that- there is an “H” marked house after the west side of the “C” marked house, which is possessed by Hemor Ali Sordar. Whether this one Hemorr Ali Sordar and Mr. Abdul Latif’s father named Hemor Ali Sordar is the same person?

Witness: Yes, they are the same person. Afterwards Mr. Latif has left his father’s residence towards his own one.

Defence: Whether anyone residing at the old house of late Hemor Ali Sordar?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: There are no houses at the northern side.

Witness: There are other houses, i.e.- the house of Abu Fakir, the house of Hemayet Sharif are noteworthy.

Defence: You have not investigated whether there were any adult people out of those abovementioned houses.

Witness: I have investigated, but there is no information about the adult people.

Defence: Where is the house of Abdul Latif Hawladar located at from the houses of Mahatab Hawladar and Mahbubul Alam Hawladar?

Witness: It is not in my note.

Defence: When did you first meet Abdul Latif Hawladar?

Witness: 19-8-2010, at 15:30 P.M. at Parerhat Rajlokkhi High School.

Defence: You have not met him afterwards.

Witness: No I have met him afterwards. The second time I met him at 6-4-2011 at 09:00 A.M. at Pirojpur Circuit house.

Defence: Did you serve a notice at the second time to meet him?

Witness: Yes. I have got the information that the witnesses was being threatened from several sources so that I have called them by serving notice.

Defence: Whether any GD (General Diary) has been filed in relation to someone threatening Abdul Latif and given his statement about this case?

Witness: I have not investigated specifically whether any GD has been filed about the matter. But I was getting the information that almost all the witnesses are anxious about their security. So I have consulted with the witnesses and advised them and directed the officers of the Police Station to ensure their security.

Defence: Whether you have served any public advertisement about your visiting for the investigation?

Witness: No. But I have informed the relevant authorities and persons.

Defence: Who are those relevant persons or authorities?

Witness: They were consisted of Mr. Mahbubul Alam and the law enforcing agencies. And others were the victims of 1971, freedom fighters and the Medias.

Defence: Whether you have informed the Pirojpur Upajila Chairman?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you served upon any notice?

Witness: No, I have informed only. When at first I have visited PIrojpur we arranged a meeting at Pirojpur Upajila Porishod. Then we have informed the attendees that we will start investigation about this case. After that when we have visited for the next time it has been highlighted in the newspapers. We have informed about the investigation to the local authority.

Defence: When did you go to Pirojpur?

Witness: On 18-8-9-2010

Defence: When did you serve the notice to the SP and the DC?

Witness: Three days before our visit.

Defence: Where did you arrange the meeting?

Witness: At Upazila Porishod Hall Room.

Defence: What were the time, duration and the number of attendees at the meeting?

Witness: There is no mentioning about these matters in my note.

Defence: Whether PIrojpur Sadar Upazila Chaiman was present there?

Witness: Yes, but it has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: What is his name?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: It has not been mentioned in your note that you have conversed with him.

Witness: Yes there is no mentioning. We have general discussion actually.

Defence: Who have given their speeches at that meeting?

Witness: Me, the SP, the DC and two other members of the Investigation team.

Defence: The statements you have made right now, is gathered from your memory.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you informed any Media during your investigation?

Witness: No. They have come after getting informed from the local authority.

Defence: You have not made any official notice to anyone at your first visit at Pirojpur.

Witness: Yes, I didn’t serve any official notice, but I have informed.

Defence: Whether have you served any official notice to any witness?

Witness: No I have not served any notice. But I have called him.

Defence: Do you have the number of Mr. Mahbub?

Witness: No. The phone numbers of other witnesses are also not there in the note.

Defence: How many people were present there at the meeting of 18-4-2010?

Witness: It is not there in my note.

Defence: You have not actually attended any meeting.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have not taken down some notes due to the influence of some evil-minded people.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Where does the house the house of Mr. Mahatab situated from the house of Mr. Mahbubul?

Witness: It is not mentioned in my note.

Defence: When did you record the statements of Mr. Mahatab?

Witness: On 19-8-2010 at Rajlokkhi High School, within the timeframe of 15:30- to 18:00.
Defence: Have you recorded all the statements by your own hands?

Witness: Yes in almost all the cases I have recorded it by my own.

Defence: How many people have given statements on 19-8-2010?

Witness: Eight people, named as follows- 1) Md. Altaf Hawladar 2) Md. Ayub Ali Hawladar 3) Anil Chondra Mondol 4) Ayub Ali Talukdar 5) Md. Manik Hawladar 6) Md. Kholilur Rahman 7) Md. Mahatab UDdin Hawladar. 8) Md. Abdul Latif Hawladar.

Defence: When did you gone at Rajlokkhi High School on that day?

Witness: At 15:30 P.M.

Defence: When did you leave the place?

Witness: At 23:00 P.M.

Defence: You have not met any witness after 18:00 P.M.

Witness: Yes, I didn’t meet.

Defence: You have not met any other witness other than those abovementioned eight on that day.

Witness: No, I have met Ruhul Amin Nobim and Mahbubul Alam Hawladar.

Defence: When did you record the statement of Ruhul Amin Nobin?

Witness: On 19-8-2010 at Parerhat.

Defence: At which place of Parerhat?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: After that you have not met him before his deposition.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Mr. Ruhul Amin is previously known to you?

Witness: No.

Defence: Among the eight witnesses abovementioned, you have mentioned the name of Kholilur Rahman, whether he is the Kholilur Rahman Sheikh?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether this Kholilur Rahman is the witness as mentioned in the GD for the case filed by Kholilur Rahman Shekh, Mahbubul Alam Hawladar and Manik Poshari.

Witness: He is the witness for the case filed by Mahbubul Alam Hawladar, but not for the case of Manik Poshari.

Defence: Whether Kholilur Rahman’s name has been included in the list of 46 witnesses which has been produced by the Prosecution to receive as evidence.

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: What is the profession of Kholilur Rahman?

Witness: He is a village doctor.

Defence: Where is his chamber located at?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: I would like to say- actually he is the worker of Khasia Academy.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Have you got the information about his profession from himself?

Witness: He has told me about that.

Defence: He has got sentence from the Highest Court of Bangladesh as an absconder.

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: He was born after the liberation.

Witness: Not true.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Okay the Court is adjourned till 2 P.M.

26 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 26

Tajul Islam came to the dais at the beginning of the proceedings and said that he would like to draw the attention of the tribunal to the medical condition of Sayedee. He said that whilst the prosecution is saying that petitioner is getting proper treatment, in fact he is seriously ill and needs the assistance of someone to move and needs the help of an attendant. The tribunal chairman said that he should file an application

Sangram Chowdhury interview

Justice Nizamul Huq then asked the reporter of Daily Sangram to come to the Dais

Justice Nizamul Huq: In today’s report there is no name of the reporter; it has been published under the title of staff reporter. Now tell us, whether Mr. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury has met the press and given statement, when he was at the accused dock during the lunch recess.

The reporter: He was talking with his counsels and the reporters were present.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Ahsanul Huq; please let your client be informed that we do not allow him to give political statements here at the court room.

Ahsanul Huq: Okay.

Justice Nizamul Huq: We will not allow it and he should be careful so that nothing can hamper the dignity of this Tribunal.

Ahsanul Huq: I am fully aware of that- My Lord.

Investigation report copy
Prior to the cross examination of the investigation officer continuing, the defense lawyer Mizanul Islam said that he needed to get a photocopy of the investigation officer's report upon which the tribunal passed an order relating to the prosecution application under section 19 (2). He said that the prosecution is relying upon this report and it is being used against the accused. He said that the tribunal has not yet passed any order on the defense review petition and he needs to cross examine the investigation officer on this report.

The chairman said, you cannot see the report. If you want to cross examine on those witness statements under section 19 (2), you may.

Defence lawyer: We will have to cross examine the IO on his report filed with the Prosecution’s 19(2) Application. We need to see on what basis the prosecution’s 19(2) was allowed.

Chairman: You do not need to see the report. Look at the Prosecution’s 19(2) Application, your reply and our order. Then you will find on the basis on which we have allowed such application.

Defence lawyer: at least allows us to inspect it.

Chairman: we shall think over the matter later on.

Sayedee Investigation Officer cross examination

Sayedee’s lawyer Mizanul Islam then continued with the cross examination of Helal Uddin the investigation officer (continuing from the previous day)

Defence: From the last days deposition I would like to say this: the family members of 25 victim’s familiies of village Umedpur have not been made witness because if they were made witnesses, there might be a chance that the truth would be revealed.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have not made anyone from those 25 victim families as witness because if they were made witnesses there was a chance that the truth would be revealed.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: The people of Umedpur who have been made witnesses by you have also not been agreed to give deposition by your teaching, so you have not produced them as witnesses.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Go to P.O.- 10 of Material Exhibit No- 12. What does it consist of?

Witness: There is a movie file and four still photographs here.

Defence: Whether in the P.O.- 10 of material exhibit-12; serial-10 of Mark-1 and in material exhibit-10; Mahbubul Alam’s house has been mentioned as settled at village- Tengrakhali?

Witness: In P.O.- 10 of material exhibit-12- it has been mentioned as village- Tengrakhali; in serial-10 of Mark-1 it has been mentioned as- village- Umedpur; and in Mark-42 it has been mentioned as Tengrakhali.

Defence: According to the Mark-1 Tengrakhali is situated at the western side of Parerhat?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When have you captured the movie files of P.O.-10 of Material exhibit- 12?

Witness: 19-8-2011 at- 13:45 P.M. to 15:00 P.M. and on 6-4-2011 at 15:15 P.M. to 19:00 P.M.

Defence: Can you explain the times and dates of capturing each particular video files.

Witness: No. I can’t.

Defence: What is the modified date for the movie file?

Witness: 22-2-2012.

Defence: Do you know- how to edit movie files?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: During the investigation you have noted down each point in your diary?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There are 4 films in the movie file; all of them are same.

Witness: No, three of them are indexes and one is the main movie file.

Defence: You have captured the video to show one room of Mr. Mahbubul Alam Hawladar.

Witness: Yes. There are some other rooms other than the room of Mahbubul Alam. The next one is the house of late Abdul Mojid Hawladar’s house who is the elder brother of Mr. Mahbubul

Prosecutor Haider Ali objected to the questions on the house of Mahubul saying that it was irrelevant. He said, 'You cannot ask this question to my witness. The cross examination should be confined to the relevant issues as per the Act and the rules. They claimed in the bail application that the prosecution witnesses are poor people and beggars. Now they want to establish this through cross examination of investigation officer. This is not relevant.'

The Tribunal allowed the questioning

Defence: Where the house of another elder brother of Mr. Mahbubul is situated at?

Witness: This is located at the same place.

Defence: In 1971 Mr. Mahbubul and other two brothers lived in the same house.

Witness: Mr. Mahbubul and late Abdul Mojid Hawladar used to live in the same house in two different rooms, but I don’t know where Mr. Abdul Baten resided in 1971 as it is not mentioned in my note.

Defence: Whether Mr. Abdul Baten is alive?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether his wife is alive?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether Baten was married in 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether he has any children?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Do you know whether Mojid Hawladar was married in 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Mr. Mahbubul has three elder sisters- Fatema, Rokeya and Matoara.

Witness: I don’t know exactly, as there is no information about that in my note.

Defence: Have you investigated, whether Mr. Mojid’s wife is alive now?

Witness:

Defence: Whether Mr. Mojid has any children?

Witness: Yes. His elder son’s name is Ilias Ali.

Defence: Have you met him?

Witness: No.

Defence: Have you visited Mr. Baten’s house?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: In 1971 Mr. Mahbubul resides at his paternal house?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether his mother resides at the same house in 1971?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: How many rooms were there in the house of Jomir Uddin alias Jamal Uddin Hawladar in 1971. Who is the father of Mr. Mahbubul?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: Whether Mr. Mahbubul and his parents stayed at the same room on 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: What was Mr. Mahbubul’s profession at 1971?

Witness: He was a student then.

Defence: Have you asked about his school and grade?

Witness: I have asked but didn’t get the answer.

Defence: What was his father’s profession in 1971?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note whether I have investigated about that or not; so I can’t say.

Defence: What was the profession of Mr. Abdul Baten at 1971?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: Whether Mr. Mahbubul, Mr. Mojid; Mr. Baten and their father did possess any structure at Parerhat Bazar?

Witness: I have not got any information.

Defence: Whether they have any store room for preserving corns?

Witness: I can’t say about any other room, other than the room which has been complained as being looted on 1971.

Defence: In which profession was Mr. Mahbubul involved in before and after 1971, did you investigate?

Witness: Before 1971 he was a student and afterwards he got involved with business- farming etc.

Defence: Now he receives the allowance of freedom fighter and his wife receives the Insolvent Mother’s allowance, have you investigated.

Witness: He receives the allowance of freedom fighter but I don’t know about his wife.

Defence: Actually Mr. Mahbubul is and was not involved in any profession before and afterwards.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: What is the image of P.O.-10 consists of?

Witness: It is the tin shed room of Mojid Hawladar. The number of the photograph is- DSC-04295; the date taken is 23-9-2010 and the date modified is 22-9-2010; the model of the camera is- Sony DSC_W110.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: It is also the image of same room.

Defence: What about the last two images?

Witness: It is the rooms of Mr. Mojid and Mr. Mahbubul where they stayed in 1971; but now it is deserted.

Defence: Have you captured the picture of the house where Mr. Mahbubul now resides?

Witness: No.

Defence: When did Mr. Mahbubul move to his new house from this house?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note; so I can’t say.

Defence: Have you found the Almirah [Cupboard], which has been complained of as having been looted, and the gold and moneys that has been looted from the Almirah.

Witness: No.

Defence: Go to material exhibit no- 42; where is the mark of Mr. Mahbubul’s house positioned at?

Witness: His house has been marked as- C, D, E, F. There has been no link in between those houses. Those have been marked as separate structures.

Defence: The sign A and B has been marked as the rooms of Mr. Mahbubul and Mr. Mojid.

Witness: Yes. This signs have been marked as linked.

Defence: There is no mentioning in the sketch map and index with which room- the mark C, D, E and F have been linked up with the mark A, B.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There is no mentioning about the mark C, D, E, F in the movie file or the image folder.

Witness: The houses as have been marked as C, D, E, F have been shown in the movie file; but it is not clearly visible.

Concerning the discrepancies in the sketch maps Judge Zahir Ahmed mentioned that the sketch maps should be accurate.

Defence: Mr. Mahbubul does not have 4 houses either in 1971 or nowadays.

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: You are making false words about the four houses of Mr. Mahbubul.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Have you visited his present house?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Mr. Mahbubul does not resides in any house which has been shown in the movie file or images.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There is no existence of any house of Mr. Mahbubul as has been shown in the sketch map and the mark C, D, E, F and the in the index of material exhibit- 43.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Look at the sketch map- whether the place located after the room marked as A is at Parerhat Bazar?

Witness: Yes, but it has been written down mistakenly; the actual name is Indurkani.

Defence: You can’t say so at this stage. You can’t correct it now. The investigation officer cannot give clarification. He cannot correct any mistake in the sketch map. He can only answer what is in the sketch map.
 The Justices consulting amongst themselves for about 5 minutes.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Mizanul; we have consulted among ourselves and come to the decision that- we will note down the explanation of the investigation officer about his mistake in the sketch map.

Mizanul Islam: No, My Lord. I have never heard anything like this in my practicing life. Mistakes on the sketch map cannot be rectified by such explanation. Everything is presented before the Tribunal after proper scrutiny of the Prosecutor. Prosecution have given this document after scrutiny and they have relied upon is document. It was considered at the time of framing Charge. The investigation officer has prepared this sketch map and has exhibited it during his examination in chief. He cannot correct the mistake in the sketch map now. He is filling up the lacunas.
Justice Anwarul Huq: Suppose, the Investigator Officer in a particular case has submitted the charge sheet for a murder case under section-305 of the CRPC. Now if it admitted without giving any scope of correction, then in that case the relevant section would not be relevant for the proper case; i.e. the correction is under section-302 of the CRPC, which has been wrongly mentioned as section-305 of the CRPC.

Mizanul Islam: With due respect I strongly oppose this my Lord. The matter of cognizance of the Investigation Officer is a very different matter. After scrutinizing the Post mortem report and other relevant materials, the section under which the cognizance will be taken up will be decided. Now, in this case if you give the investigation officer frequent scope, he will try to alter all the matters which are going to go against him. He   cannot rectify mistakes done by him during investigation Process.

Justice Anwarul Huq: I differ with you.

Chairman we shall consider see this matter later on.

Mizanur Islam, I have asked the investigation officer a direct question and he has given answer. Nothing extra should go on record to rectify his answer.

Chairman No the explanation will go.

Mizanur Islam: we are withdrawing the question then.Prosecutor: The investigation officer has given the explanation of his mistake in the sketch map and this should be recorded.

Chairman: The sketch map is created by him and he is now in the dock. He has every right to rectify his mistakes. After all it is his document. If this explanation is taken no one will be prejudiced.

Mizanur Islam: This document is created by govt. officials. The Tribunal has got right to take judicial notice on that doc. This is also an exhibited document and its content will be considered as evidence. So its mistakes cannot not be rectified in such a way.

Judge: Since the sketch map is exhibited, you do not need to confirm its contents through the investigation officer. You may withdraw your question on the sketch map.

Mizanur Islam: Ok, I am withdrawing my question on the sketch map. Delete his explanation.

Chairman: Ok, the question is withdrawn and delete this part of the investigation officer's statement.

Prosecution: no, the defence cannot withdraw the question. The investigation officer's explanation cannot be deleted.

Chairman: we will not change the order.
Haidar Ali: My Lord, he is mentioning a frequent scope is being given to the Investigator, which is not actually so. He should be getting a chance to correct, otherwise there will be a chance of prejudice.

Defence: The house marked as “G” is possessed by whom? 

Witness: Ali Akbar Hawladar.

The tribunal is adjourned till 2 P.M. 

25 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 25

The tribunal hearing started the day by continuing with the cross examination of Sayedee's investigation officer, Helal Uddin by the defense lawyer Mizanul Islam (continued from the previous day)

Defence: Have you visited Sheikh Hasina Academy? Where is it located from the house of Shohidul Islam Khan Selim?

Witness: Sheikh Hasina Academy is located at the place which is situated at 125 Gauz south sides, from the house of Shohidul Islam Khan. [*Gauz= a measure of length equal to 3 feet]. I didn’t go to the Academy; I have walked on the front side of it. The Parerhat Bondor Bridge is located at just adjacent to north-western side of Selim Khan’s house.

Defence: Is it located at Badura or Chitholia village?

Witness: The note has not been taken in my notebook, so I can’t say.

Defence: Whether the Badura village is facing at north-south or east-west side?

Witness: The note has not been taken in my notebook, so I can’t say.

Defence: How many houses are there in Badura village?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: In which side is the Chitholia village facing?

Witness: North-South.

Defence: How many houses are there in Chitholia village?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Go to P.O.-8 of material exhibit- 12. What about the details of the first image?

Witness: There has been no title in this image. Either there is a number, given as a title. The date taken and modified of this image- is- 26-2-2010.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: This is the image of Manik Poshari’s house. There has been no title in this image. Either there is a number, given as a title. The date taken and modified of this image is- 26-2-2010.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: There is no mention about the owner of the house in my note, so I can’t say whose house is it contained in the image. The date taken and modified of this image is- 26-2-2010.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: This is an image of Parerhat Bridge; I don’t know what is the detail of the building; which is located behind the bridge.

Defence: You have mentioned about a bridge beside the house of Shohidul Islam Khan Selim, whether it is the same bridge?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the building located behind the bridge is included in the area of Kormokar Potti?

Witness: No. The building is situated in the area of market. But, I can’t say in which part of the market; the building is situated at. The bridge is situated at the eastern-south side of the Kali Mondir. The date taken and modified of this image is- 26-02-2010.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: There is no detail about the next image. But it is Parerhat Thana Ghat. There are two structures at the side of the Ghat. The shop facing at the Gat is owned by Saiful.

Defence: Whether you have interviewed Mr. Saiful.

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say anything.

Defence: Have you investigated, whether the same shop was located at the same place in 1971?

Witness: I have investigated, but can’t say anything, because it is not included it in my notebook.

Defence: Who is the black bearded man standing in front of the shop, wearing white shirt?

Witness: He is Kholilur Rahman who is a witness in this case.

Defence: What about the next shop of the same image?

Witness: The shop is owned by Mr. Dobir; but as I have not made him a witness in this case and the notes have not been taken in my notebook, so I can’t say whether this shop was located at the same place in 1971. In 1971 there were shops besides the Parerhat Ghat, but the ownership has been changed. I don’t know who the owners of these two shops were on 1971. I can’t say also whether there were any adjacent shops after these shops. The date taken and modified is same as previous.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: It is the house of Mr. Selim Khan; but there is no mention about the detail of this house in the title. There is only number shown as title. The date taken and modified is 06-04-2010.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: This is the house of Manik Poshari. There is no mention about the detail in the title, there is only a number as the title.

Defence: Where is Parerhat Bondor (Port) is located from Parerhat Bazar (Market)?

Witness: At the eastern-south side.

Defence: Whether small boats and fishing boats are being run from the port?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you have found anyone among the present users of this port, who were using this port on 1971?

Witness: Yes I have found some people. As for example: Manik Poshari and Mofijuddin.

Defence: Whether any water vehicles were running from the port in 1971 or whether you have found any owner or worker of those water vehicles of 1971?

Witness: It has not been taken in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: Whether the port area was populated in 1971?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Do you know where the house of Mr. Gourango Pal is situated?

Witness: No. I have not investigated during my investigation. He is dead. One of his sons is living at Parerhat, two sons are living at Dhaka and another one is living at India. I don’t know name of the son who is living at Parerhat.

Defence: You have not interviewed anyone from Parerhat?

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have not interviewed anyone of the adjacent area of Parerhat area.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Please go to P.O.-9 of material exhibit no- 12;

Witness: There are 4 movie files.

Defence: There is a word file over the first movie file; whether it has been written by you?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Where is the house of Abdul Halim Babul situated?

Witness: It is situated at the Nolbunia village under the Indurkani Police Station.

Defence: Whether you have edited and inserted the above mentioned word file with the P.O.-9?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the video file of P.O.-9 is consisted of several video footages?

Witness: Yes. The date of modification is- 26-02-2011 and I have captured the video on 20-08-2010 beside the area and the house of Mr. Bishabali.

Defence: What is the present population of village Umedpur?

Witness: I don’t know, as it is not in my note. I don’t know also what was the population at 1971.

Defence: Do you know the population of Nolbunia village?

Witness: No.

Defence: Is Nolbunia densely populated?

Witness: No it is consisted of standard population. There are trees also.

Defence: How many rooms are there in the house of Abdul Halim

Witness: Two.

Defence: Are there 8 or 9 houses in addition to the structure of Abdul Halim?

Witness: No, there are 5 to 6 houses beside the house of Abdul Halim; which are owned by- 1) Nasiruddin, 2) Faruk 3) Ajhar 4) Rofik. I have not met anyone of them.

Defence: When did you first visit the house of Abdul Halim?

Witness: On 06-04-2011 at Parerhat High School. I have not sent a notice to him to be present. I have informed the local Police Station and Mr. Mahbubul Alam about my visit and whether he has informed Abdul Halim, I don’t know.

Defence: How many members are there in his family?

Witness: His wife, one son, one daughter, brother- Abdus Salam Bahadur and Abdul Karim Modhu.

Defence: Whether Mr. Babul’s mother is alive?

Witness: It has not mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: Whether you have asked about the position of his mother?

Witness: It has not mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: When did his father die?

Witness: I have not investigated about that.

Defence: The position of Mr. Babul’s mother has not been included in the note, so I can’t say anything- it is not true.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Mr. Babul’s mother is alive, but she didn’t agree to give false statement, so you have not made her a witness.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Among the two brothers of Mr. Babul, who is the eldest?

Witness: Abdus Salam Bahadur is elder; but he is younger than to Mr. Babul.

Defence: Did you see the birth registration card of Mr. Abdus Salam Bahadur?

Witness: No.

Defence: Do you know the profession of Abdus Salam Bahadur?

Witness: No.

Defence: When did you meet him?

Witness: 06-04-2011

Defence: You have not actually met Abdus Salam Bahadur.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Did you find anyone who is older than 60 years residing in Nolbunia village?

Witness: Yes, among them I have made one Ms. Sitara Begum a witness.

Defence: Do you know whether there is anyone male who is older than 60 years residing in that village.

Witness: It has not mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: Whether the following men are residing in the village Nolbunia? 1) Joynal (aged-60 years.) 2) Hemayet Uddin (aged-70 years) 3) Eshak Fokir’s Son- Khalek (aged-60 years) 4) Toufik (aged- 75).

Witness: It has not mentioned in my note, so I can’t say.

Defence: The following men are living adjacent to the house of Abdul Halim Babul. If they have been made witness, there is possibility that the truth would be revealed, o you have not made them witnesses.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Among the 4 movie files of P.O.-4, one is the main movie file and other 3 are its indexes.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: How many images are there in this P.O.?

Witness: 33 images. All the images have been mentioned as date taken and modified on 26-2-2012

Defence: Now, what about the detail of first image?

Witness: It is the house of Abdul Halim, bbut there is no mention of title other than number in this image. The man who is visible in this image is Mr. Abdul Halim.

Defence: What about the next?

Witness: It is the image of same house Abdul Halim captured from different direction.

Defence: What about the next?

Witness: This is the image of the part of the room of Faruk’s house. There is a structure visible on the same image which is the part of a room of the house of Nasir Uddin.

Defence: What about the next?

Witness: It is the house of Ajahar of Nolbunia village.

Defence: Whether there are any images or videos of the house of Salam Bahadur or Abdul Karim?

Witness: No.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of the houses of Ajhar Ali and the adjacent house of Bari Hauladar.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Ohit Talukdar.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Ajhar Ali from different dimension.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the closer view of the previous house of Ajhar Ali.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Ajhar Ali.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Kalu- son of late Roton Hawladar.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: Ohid Talukdar’s house.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the part of the image of Umedpur village.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of the deserted house of Bishabali.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Anil Mondol.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Moken Thakur.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Chitto Talukdar.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the house of Gourango Talukdar.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of the trees and pond of Bishabali’s house.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of Umedpur Hindu area, but there is no detail about this image in my notebook.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is an image of a house.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of the part of Hindu area. There is no mention about the detail of the house which is visible here in my note, so I can’t say anymore.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of the road and the trees adjacent on the way towards Umedpur.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is another image of the road and the trees adjacent on the way towards Umedpur.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is known as Umedpur Khal, which is beside the house of Bishabali.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the image of a road and some trees of betel-nut which is on the way towards Umedpur.

Defence: What about the next one?

Witness: It is the pond and trees at the northern side of the house of Bishabali.

Defence: Tengrakhali village is located at which side of the village Umedpur?

Witness: West-southern side.

Defence: Who is taking care of the deserted house of Bishabali?

Witness: His brother Sukhabali. Sukhabali and Bishabali are two brothers.

Defence: What is the original residence of Sukhabali and Bishabali?

Witness: Their original residence is at Umedpur village.

Defence: Who is their father?

Witness: Lolit Kumar.

Defence: How many brothers and sisters did Lolit Kumar have?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Do you know- whether there are any paternal uncle and aunties of Bishabali and Sukhabali?

Witness: No. I don’t know any more information other than the info of Sukhabali’s wife and daughter.

Defence: How many people are living at the village?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether there are 40 dwelling houses in the village Umedpur?

Witness: I don’t know actually.

Defence: You have not found even the existence of 20 houses though.

Witness: Umedpur is a large village; I have found more than 20 dwelling houses; but it has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t say anything about that.

Defence: How many witnesses you have been made out of Umedpur village?

Witness: Three. They have not come here before the Tribunal for giving statements.

Defence: How many people were there in the village Umedpur at 1971; who are over the age of 15?

Witness: I have got information about 19 to 20 people.

Defence: Have you investigated about the affected families in the village Umedpur?

Witness: The information as I have found about the affected families were almost-25.

The Tribunal was adjourned till after lunch recess.

24 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 24

After the Azam trial adjournment application was dealt with, the tribunal then continued with the cross examination of Sayedee's investigation officer, Helal Uddin, which was undertaken by Mizanul Islam - carrying on from 20 June

Defence: You have submitted the material exhibit no, 12 and 13. Whether you have captured the photographs included therein by going to the spot of incident or elsewhere?

Witness: I have captured those photographs by visiting the spots.

Defence: What do you mean by P.O.-5 of the material exhibit no- 13?

Witness: It is the Pirojpur Hospital and the bank of Boleshwor River.

Defence: You have provided the Sketch Map as Mark-1,which shows P.O. as only as a Hospital.

Witness: Mark-1 has provided P.O.-4 as the bank of Boleshwor River. And Mark-1 has also provided P.O.-5 as the Hospital. There are 23 photographs of 18 places of incidents.

Defence: What is the distance between Pirojpur Sadar Hospital and the Boleshwari River?

Witness: It is almost one and half kilometer west.

Defence: Whether there is any mention of the date taken on the movie files of the material exhibit- 12 and 13?

Witness: No. There are 4 movie files in the material exhibit no- 12. All of these files contain 22-2-2012 as the modified date and time is- 08:41:10 P.M. There are three images on the material exhibit-12. The first image contains 01-04-2010 as the date taken; whereas the second and third one contains the date 22-9-2010 and the date 22-9-1-2010 as the date taken.

Defence: What is the places shown in the P.O.-6 of the material exhibit-12?

Witness: It is the Parerhat Bondor Bazar. There are 9 images and one video. The modified date of the Video is 22-02-2012. The Video contains some parts of the bazaar, not the entire place.

Defence: What is about the first image?

Witness: This is an image; which has been mentioned as taken on- 06-04-2011 and modified date is- 06-05-2011. There is a mentioning over the first image that- “Shop of Modon Saha.” This is a structure of two storied building. The first floor is build upon the wall of ground floor.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: The image contains a title “Pach Tohobil”; I have written up the title over the image. The date taken is: 06-04-2011 and date modified is 06-04-2011. The next image is mentioned as “Parerhat-1”; it is a photograph of a shop. There is a wooden door in this shop. The shop is presently owned by Nasir Uddin; father- late Sultan Talukdar.

Defence: What about the next image?

Witness: This is the part of an image of Parerhat Bazar; which is mentioned as “Parerhat-2”.

Defence: What about the P.O.-7?

Witness: It is about the house of Selim Khan and Manik Poshari and the place of murder of Ibrahim Kutti. This P.O. contains a video file also. The video has been started from Selim Khan’s house; then the following places, Sheikh Hasina Academy, Late Roiz Uddin Poshari’s house; late freedom fighter Amjad Hossain’s house, Manik Poshari’s home; the hose of Altaf and Wajed; road, bridge, the place of killing of Ibrahim Kutti, Parerhat Police Station river bank; Parerhat pond and Kocha River. The video has been captured on 18-8-2010 at between 09:55 A.M. to 10:25 A.M. and on 06-04-2011 at 15:15 P.M. to 19:00 P.M.

Defence: Who captured the video?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note, so I can’t recall.

Defence: Whether you have created this movie file by editing several video clippings or from a single capture.

Witness: By editing several clippings.

Defence: Whether you have edited it from 5 several video clippings?

Witness: It is not mentioned in my note, so I can’t recall.

20 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 23

After the adjournment order was denied, the cross examination of Sayedee’s investigation officer continued. This follows on from 12 June

Defence: My last question was whether the contents of the material exhibit- 12 and 13 have been photographed during the period of your investigation?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the photographs you have submitted as this material exhibit have been captured by yourself only?

Witness: Few were captured by me and others were captured by other members of our team.

Defence: Whether there was a specialized photographer with you?

Witness: Yes. He was there during capturing both the still and video footages. His name is Probin Kumar.

Defence: Whether he is a member of Investigation agency?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When, one is going to play the video or the images burned in this CD/DVD, whether the dates of capturing the photos will be visible?

Witness: No.

Defence: I would like to say the title of the date of burning or saving the data on the CD/DVD is shown as “date created” in the properties box of a photograph.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Why the words “date taken” has been used in this material exhibit? After capturing a photograph when you are make it save in a folder- there the name and model of the camera, dimension of the length and width, resolution, date modified and the date taken are being visible in the properties box.

Witness: I am not expert about the matter.

Defence: You have not made the specialized photographer a witness in this case.

Witness: Yes. I didn’t.

Defence: You have not submitted the photographs which have been captured by others.

Witness: There were photographs which have been captured by other team members. They were Inspector Ataur Rahman, Inspector Ruhul Hossain, Inspector Obaidullah. They are not witness in this case. 

[Multimedia Show of the relevant photographs of material exhibit- 12 and 13.]

Defence: You have captured two Photographs of witness Fokir Das in the material exhibit-12. The date created is 4-6-2011

Witness: The date which is being fixed in the camera might be seen as the substance of date created; so I am not sure about the date.

Defence: Usually the date and time in a Digital camera is being fixed from the very onset; it is to be updated as per the user’s preference.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You five have captured these photographs. Who hasupdated the date and time?

Witness: I don’t know whether anyone has updated it or not.

Defence: From where you have collected this camera?

Witness: I have collected this on 18-8-2010. It is being supervised by Probin Kumar. If it is required I take it along with Probin Kumar.

Defence: What is the properties box of the Photographs saying about the name of the camera on the abovementioned photograph?

Witness: As per the information being shown in the Properties Box- the name of the camera is- NIKON-D70; the date taken is- 04-06-2010, time- 4:32 P.M.; the date of modified is shown as- 6-5-2011; time- 08:52 P.M. 

[By common agreement of both the defence and prosecution team- no evidence will be taken about the date created; as it is being shown different in each computer or laptop]

Defence: Now, go to the next folder- what is the date and other matters?

Witness: In the P.O. no-2 the date for the first three photographs is shown as- 22-04-2010; time- 03:08 A.M.; Date modified- 22-9-2010, time- 02:08:54 A.M.

Justice Anwarul Huq: It is being seen in the display that- the photograph has been taken on the bright sunlight; whereas the time is being shown as -3:00 A.M. or 2 A.M.; which is the midst of night.

Defence: It is the duty of the Investigators to conduct investigation properly. It is apparent that- the investigation has not been done properly- as the dates and times are creating confusions.

Defence: Now, what about the 4th photograph of the P.O.-2?

Witness: Date taken is- 25-02-2012, time- 5:15 A.M.; the name of the camera- DSC-W-310.

Defence: On 25-02-2012 the investigation was not running on.

Witness: Yes. It was not running on.

Defence: What is the name of the camera for the first three photographs- DSC-W-110.

Witness:

Defence: Whether the rest of the photos in this folder contain the same date 25-02-2012 as date taken?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Go to the next folder- P.O.-3; what about the 1st, 2nd and 3rd photographs?

Witness: The photos have been captured at the killing spot Machimpur and the backside of LGED building. The first photograph contains the following information-- date taken- 31-3-2010; time- 11:38 P.M.; 2nd one is- date taken- 01-04-2010, time- 12:17 A.M.; 3rd one- 01-3-2010, time- 11:40 P.M.

Defence: On 01-03-2010 and 01-04-2010 the investigation of this proceeding has not been started with and the charge has not been recorded.

Witness: True.

Defence: Go to the next folder; P.O-4? What is it about?

Witness: It is the former DPO Office and above the photograph it has been stated as the – “District Food Controller’s Office”; Pirojpur. From the properties box – it has been found that the first photograph has been taken on- 22-9-2010, time- 3:32 A.M. the second one has been taken on 22-9-2010, time 3:32 A.M., the 3rd and 4th one has been taken on- 22-9-2010; time- 3:34 A.M.; the model of the Camera is- DSC-W-110. 

Justice Nizamul Huq: The Court is adjourned till 2 P.M.

13 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 22

Adjournment application
Abdur Razzak, defence counsel sought to adjourn proceedings relating to Sayedee until 25th June. He said that their chief trial counsel Mizanul Islam was not well and needed to rest, adding that on 24th June the trial of Professor Golam Azam is due to start and Mizanul Islam will be conducting the trial of that case and he needs time for preparation.

The chairman said that the defence could get the assistance of other lawyers; it is up to the defence party, whom they choose to be their lawyer.

Razzak also said that they also need some rest, with the chairman responding that the judge have no rest, and the tribunal must proceed.

The chairman said that they would accept any plea except ones for adjournment.

Abdur Razzak, said that If you can accept out applications why not one for adjournment.

The chairman said that, ‘Not in our hands.’

Books for Azam

The chairman then asked the prosecutor Mr. Malum about whether the jail authority was complying with the order relating to books for Gholam Azam. He asked him whether he had any discussion with the Jail Authority?

Zead Al Malum said that the accused has given a list of his desired books to the Jail authority. After getting their list of books in our hands, it will then be sent to the District Magistrate.

Justice Nizamul Huq asked by following which law was the list sent to the District Magistrate?

Zead Al Malum said that by following Rule 1074 of the Jail Code.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The order has been passed about supplying some specific books, not more than that. You can say it in clear terms that there is no order to supply books other than those which is contained in the desired list of the petitioner.

He then said that the list should go to the superintendent under Rule-654; not to the District Magistrate. The order is only about supplying the books mentioned in the order. We have stated in simple terms to supply 4 kinds of books.

Everybody to whom the order has been passed must obey the order. We didn’t mention the names of the authors for those books. Now, the jail authority may ask for clarification to supply those. But without doing that, after getting an order from this Tribunal; they have sent it to the District Magistrate.

Zead Al Malum said that the printing materials must be certainly checked out and that he had sent it to the magistrates just because of some suspicions.

Tajul Islam then said, after passing the order on 13th and our learned friend is submitting his arguments like this. The rule of the Jail Code that he has submitted is that if books exceed 5 in number, the permission of the District Magistrate is required. They are not complying with the order of this tribunal and thus hereby presenting some misleading arguments. They are thereby disobeying the orders of the tribunal. They are challenging the supremacy of the Tribunal.

Justice Nizamul Huq passed the following order (Summary)

On 13-5-2012 upon the prayer of the accused petitioner Gholam Azam; this tribunal has directed the Prison Authority to supply him the Holy Quran, Tafsir, Hadis, and Biography of Hazrat Muhammad Sallalllahu Alaihis Salam (PBUH).

Mr. Tajul Islam appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the said books have not been supplied to the accused; as such the Prison Authority has violated the order of the Tribunal. We have asked Prosecutor Zead Al Malum to consult with the prison authority about the position of the matter. He has submitted that the Jail authority upon receiving the order has sent the matter to the District Magistrate; under Rule- 1074 of the Jail Code.

Upon perusal of the order and hearing both the parties we are of the view that if the Jail authority has any doubt about the order they could ask for a clarification from the tribunal. The Jail authority ought to supply the books to the accused. If any doubt is being created they might ask.

One month is going to be passed. It is noticed that the order has not been complied with. We again direct the Jail authority to supply the books within two days of transferring the order, thereby complying with the court’s order.

Zead Al-Malum asked the tribunal to please mention the names of the books in the order.

Tajul Islam said that they will provide the list at 2 P.M.

Cross examination of Sayedee Investigation officer, day

The cross examination of Helal Uddin the Investigation Officer, by the defence lawyer Mizanul Islam then continued. This followed on from the previous day

Defence: To get the information about Mr. Delwar Hossain Syedee you have sent letters to the 5 authorities in the memo no- 352 through the Chief Coordinator of the Investigation Unit Mr. Abdul Hannan Khan on 10-4-2011.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: On 10-4-2011 Mr. Abdul Hannan Khan has sent letters to the following authorities namely- 1) Police Super, Pirojpur 2) D.C. Motijheel, DMP, Dhaka 3) SS Metro, CID Bangladesh 4) SS City, SB, Bangladesh 5) DC-DB- Dhaka.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The letter was served to ask for a report for the status of the accused before 1971 and any remarkable change, if any after the liberation war and his position after the 16th December, 1971.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Mr. Moniruzzaman, Additional Police Commissioner, Detective and the Crimes Information Unit, South, DMP has sent a report on 18-4-2011.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The report contains the name of the accused father as Mawlana Yousuf Sayedee.
Witness: Yes.

Defence: The 3rd Para states the economic status and afterward states that information might be collected from his (accused) place of birth and the Parerhat Union.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: On 21-4-2011; SB Police Super- Mr. Moniruzzaman has forwarded the memo no- 360 of 21-4-2011 towards the Senior Assistant Police Super- Akramul Hossain; to send it to the Chief Coordinator of the Investigation Unit Mr. Abdul Hannan Khan.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It has been mentioned that before 1971 he has involved in giving Tafsir [Islamic Statements.]

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It has not been mentioned there that Mr. Sayedee was involved with the activities which are against the liberation war movement.

Witness: Whether Mr. Syedee was involved with the activities which are against the spirit of Liberation war movement, this question was not asked for. So there is no statement regarding this matter in the report.

Defence: Whether there is any line in the report about the position and the profession of the following accused at 1971

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There is no information about his involvement with the “Pach Tohobil” in 1971.

Witness: No. There is not.

Defence: Whether Mr. Sayedee’s present address is situated under the arena of the DMP, Motijheel Police Station.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The report of Mr. Tofajjol Hossain, acting Personnel of Motijheel Police Station which was made on 30-4-2011 was sent to the Sub Police Commissioner, Motijheel Division, Dhaka- Mr. Anwar Hossain. On 2-5-2011 he has forwarded the report to the Police Commissionr, DMP. On- 8-5-2011; the Joint Police Commissioner- Mr. Md. Ibrahim Hatim, PPM has forwarded the report to the Chief Coordinator of the Investigation Unit Mr. Abdul Hannan Khan.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The first serial of the report contains the names and the addresses.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It states the last portion of the name of the accused and his father as “Sayedee”, not “Sikdar”.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Please have a look at serial-4; it states that from the time of his birth, he has stayed at Southkhali of Pirojpur District till 1974. He has stayed at Khulna till 1975 to 1980 and on 1975- being arrested at Kotoali Police Station of Khulna he was being detained.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The line of his being arrest states that he has been detained under the Special Powers Act.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: On 29-4-2011, Mr. Lutfor Rahman, CID has sent a report without expressing anything about his position at 1971. It has been mentioned in the report that the authority of the Police Station of Indurkani, Pirojpur District might provide some information regarding the matter.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: On 9-5-2011 Mr. Mahbub Hossain, PPM, Additional IGP on behalf of IG, special branch, Dhaka has sent a report to the Chief Coordinator of the Investigation Unit Mr. Abdul Hannan Khan. And the report was sent to you.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Look at the serial-8, it states that he was giving Tafsir [Islamic Statements] at various places.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Though the report states about his position and profession in 1971 but does not states about his involvement with either the “Pach Tohobil” or any activities against the liberation war movement.

Witness: The report was not asked to be provided with these matters.

Defence: 5 Police officer have assisted preparing this report from the field level. Were any of them made any witnesses?

Witness: No.

Defence: Till the formation of the Police force a special fortnightly report was being forwarded to the Government.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: During the liberation war; the Pirojpur Mohokuma was situated under which special Division of the Police force?

Witness: Bakergonj Division.

Defence: Whether you have collected the special fortnightly report of the then Bakergonj Police District which especially comprises the report about Pirojpur Mohokuma.

Witness: No. I have contacted the Pirojpur Police Super; and didn’t find any information.

Defence: Whether you have forwarded any letter to the Pirojpur Police Super regarding the matter?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether there is any information regarding your visit to the Pirojpur Police Superintendent regarding the matter.

Witness: I didn’t go there specifically for this purpose but to the purpose of overall investigation.

Defence: When did you go to the Pirojpur Police Super?

Witness: On 18-09-2011; at 9: 40 A.M.

Defence: The Special branch is being operated by the DI-1 [District Inspector-1]?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you have gone to the office of the DI-1 of Pirojpur?

Witness: No.

Defence: When you have gone to the Police Superintendent of Pirojpur; then on that day- who was in charge of the DI-1?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: When did the Pirojpur Mohokuma get separated from the Bakergonj; can you say.

Witness: No.

Defence: There is no information about the destruction of the fortnightly reports of Pirojpur.

Witness: No.

Defence: You haven;t produce the reports intentionally, because if you would have produced those- there was a chance to come out that Mr. Sayedee’s not involved with any kind of following activities.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You didn’t make as witnesses the Police Officers at the field levels who have assisted preparing the following 5 reports- because in that case, there was a chance that it would come out that Mr. Syedee’s not involved with any kind of following activities.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have used the official movie camera and still camera for preparing the material exhibit no- 12 and 13.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: How many cameras have been used?

Witness: 1 movie camera and 1 still camera.

Defence: The photographs which have been attached here under the material exhibits have been captured within the period after the investigation starts and the investigation ends off.

Witness: Yes.

Adjournment

5 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 20

The hearing started with the continuation of the cross examination by Sayedee’s defence of the investigation officer Helal Uddin

Defence: The Position as has been located in the Map you have submitted of the graveyards and burial places are situated in the Parerhat Union.

Witness: Yes.

There then followed a discussion between the tribunal, the prosecutor Haider Ali and the defence lawyer Mizanul Islam that can be summarized in the following way:

Prosecutor: This document is not exhibited. Defence cannot cross examine on this report of PW 1. According to the rules of Procedure, the cross examining must be confined to the examination in chief that the witness has given and cannot go beyond that.

Chairman: have you submitted this document?

Prosecutor: Yes.

Chairman: Are you relying upon it

Prosecutor: No.

Chairman: Why did you give that? As you have given that document they have right to cross examine on it.

Judge Zahir Ahmed: don’t you want to get benefit of the document?

HA: No

Chairman: We shall write on that document that the prosecution do not want to get the benefit on that doc.

Prosecutor: Ok, you can.

Judge Anwarul Haq: You can take back that document now. If it remains in our hand we may consider that.

Prosecutor: Ok. We are taking back that document as not pressed. We are also not pressing Peoples Inquiry Commission’s Report.

Chairman: Ok. Take it back.

Defence: I have to say something. The prosecution has submitted those documents after they have scrutinized them. The investigation officer has given the documents to the Chief prosecutor who has scrutinized that doc. On the basis of those documents the formal Charge is submitted. The Tribunal has then framed charge on those documents. All the witnesses in fact have given their statements. Investigation officer has given his examination in chief. Prosecution Case in near to close. In that situation this document cannot be taken back. On the basis of that documents we may discredit the witness.

The essence of section 16 (2) and section 19 of the ICT Act-1973 is that the Chief Prosecutor and the Investigation Officer can submit those documents which they rely on. Once those have been submitted it can be assumed they have relied on them. It has never been said anywhere that questions should not be raised upon a document which they do not wish to rely fully on.

Prosecutor: According to the amended rule 23 and 53 defence cannot cross examine beyond what was said in examination in chief. The Investigation officer did not mention anything about this document in his evidence. This document is not exhibited by any of our witnesses. So why does the defence want to cross-examine on that document?

Chairman: The defense wants to discredit the witness and the investigation process.

Prosecutor: Yes they can, but not in that way.

Justie Zahir: It was your duty to sort out those documents. Why did you supply them? Without scrutiny you have submitted the bulk of the documents.

Defence: the matter has already been decided. You have permitted us to cross examine us on a book which has not been exhibited named ‘Associates of Pakistan Army in 1971 by A.S.M.Samsul Arefin. It is already a decided matter. The investigation officer has submitted the investigation Report. You have relied upon that documents in the charge framing order. This document is relates to statement in the allegation. Prosecutor has relied upon that document. We have already cross examined on that particular document. We have also cross-examined on a website awhich was not exhibited.

Chairman: the Tribunal has every right to restrict your cross examination in certain matters. The question is how much it is relevant and if so to what extent.

Defence: the document indicates that there is no mass grave in Parerhat Union but as per mark II there are two mass graves in Parerhat. That is why we need to cross examine on that document.

Chairman: Yes Mr. Islam you may proceed on.

Prosecution: We have some objections.

Chairman: But cross examination is allowed..

Cross examination continued

Defence: Here, there is one information about Parerhat Union and two photographs of the graveyards of the same Union.

Defence: The above document [memorial] which is signed by Kaji Tofael Hossain does not contain any graveyard of Parerhat Union.

Witness: Yes there is not. [As the memorial has not been produced as the material exhibit; so the statement of the investigation has been counted with the objection from the Prosecution team.]

Defence: Whether the map has been made in your sight?

Witness: Yes. The sketch map and the index have been prepared in my sight by the LGED. The Mark-1 has been prepared by the same personnel of LGED, who have prepared the Mark-2.

Defence: What information have you supplied to LGED to prepare the following Map?

Witness: The name of the place of incident, the photograph of the place of incident, the reference of the case, the name- address and the photographs of the accused.

Defence: What has been contained in the Index No- Ka and Kha of the Sketch Map?

Witness: Nothing has been mentioned in the index map.

Defence: It has not been mentioned here that the map relates to which unions.

Witness: It has been mentioned. Pirojpur Sadar, Zianagar and Bagharpara of Jessore have been mentioned there.

Defence: The photograph which has been mentioned in the serial no- 21 of the index has not been contained in the sketch map.

Witness: Yes, it has not been mentioned in the map.

Defence: Serial No- 18, 19, 11 are not places.

Witness: Serial no- 18 and 19 are not the photographs of the places of incidents; but serial- 11 is the photograph of the place of incident and the house of witness Usha Rani Malakar.

Defence: Whether it has been mentioned in the index that- it is the photograph of the aforesaid witness Usha Rani Malakar?

Witness: No.

Defence: It is not clear whether it is a house or anything else.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: It is not photograph of the internal side of the house of Usha Rani Malakar.

Witness: The fence surrounding the room of the witness is visible here.

Defence: Whether the murdered 14 people of the Parerhat Hindu area were the people of different houses?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the house of Mahabubul Alam Hawladar, Prosecution Witness is situated at Tengrakhali?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The photograph mentioned in the serial no-14 states the location of Mahabub as Umedpur.

Witness: Yes. Tengrakhali is located under Umedpur.

Defence: Two places have been mentioned as the houses of Mahabubul Alam Hawladar in the material display-1; but nowhere the name of Umedpur has been mentioned.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Mahabubul Alam Hawladar has one house?

Witness: No he has two houses.

Defence: Whether another house is a tin shed one?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the house as has been displayed in the photograph is a dwelling house?

Witness: No. It is an abandoned one.

Defence: When have you captured the photograph of mark-1; serial- 9?

Witness: On 20-8-2010.

Defence: What is the name of the man who is standing in front of a house and being seen in the photograph of mark-1, serial-9?

Witness: Suresh Chondro Mondol.

Defence: The serial-4 and serial-5 are displaying different photographs which have been mentioned as Boleshwor River.

Witness: The serial-4 is displaying the bank of the river whereas display-5 is the place of abduction of Deputy Magistrate Mizanur Rahman from the Pirojpur Sadar Hospital.

Defence: Whether it has been mentioned anywhere that it is the photograph of Pirojpur Sadar Hospital.

Witness: It is not specific.

Defence: Whether it has been mentioned that the last part of the display-4 is the photograph of the bank of Boleshwor River?

Witness: It is not specified.

Defence: You have included the photograph of the accused in this Sketch Map and Index.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: From where have you collected the photograph?

Witness: I have collected it from the internet through my own initiatives.

Defence: You have passed Masters Degree. Right?

Witness: No. I have passed, BSC, BED.

Defence: Whether the forms of Matriculation Exam, Intermediate Exam, BSC Exams ought to be filled up by the students themselves.

Witness: Yes.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The Court is adjourned till 2 P.M.

4 June 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 19

The tribunal then moved on from dealing with the Chowdhury trial, to the next item on the list which was Sayedee.

One of the defence counsel juniors stood up before the tribunal to pray for an adjournment till 2 pm as the senior counsel was stuck on the way. The Justice replied we will not allow a single moment. and this it was his duty to inform the senior lawyer to be present within 11:30 am when you realized that the the previous case was finishing. Then the junior again prayed for 30 minutes to let him arrive. The Justice refused him. Then Mr. Tajul Islam arrived in a hurry to pray for some time. The Justice again felt uncertain. They then started waiting for the counsel to arrive. At 12: 15 P.M. the senior counsel arrived and prayed apologies for the unwanted delay.

The cross examination of the investigation officer relating to Sayedee’s case continued. Questioning by the defense lawyer Mizanul Islam continuing from the previous day

Defence: Mostofa Khalil is the applicant of the GD No- 240 of Zianagar Police Station. It has been filed against Abdur Rashid Boyati. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: Did you question Mostofa Khalil? 

Witness: During the investigation, I did question him but did not make him a witness. 

Defence: Where is his house situated? 

Witness: His house is at Hoglabunia under the Police Staton Indurkani; and his father’s name is Yousuf Khalifa. 

Defence: Could you mention the distance between the houses of Prosecution Witness-4 Mostofa Hawladar and Mostofa Kholifa? 

Witness: It is not in my record. 

Defence: On 19-4-2010 you have recorded the statements of Ruhul Amin Nobin, Mahbobul Alam Hawladar, Md. Altaf Hawladar, Md. Ayub Ali Hawladar, Onilchondro Mondol, Ayub Ali Talukdar, Md. Manik hawladar, Md. Kholilur Rahman Sheikh, Md. Abdul Latif Hawladar. 

Witness: Not true. I didn’t record their statement except Mahbubul Alam Hawladar. The time of recording has been mentioned as 9:45 A.M. 

Defence: You have met Mahbubul Alam Hawladar previously on 8th May, 10th May, 21st July, 2010 before met him on 19-4-2010. 

Witness: Not true. I have met him on 21st July before meeting him at 19-4-2010. 

Defence: You have not recorded the statements of Mahbubul Alam Hawladar. 

Witness: Not true. 

Defence: When did you interrogate Mr. Mostofa Kholifa? 

Witness: As I didn’t record his statement so I didn’t mention the time. 

Defence: When did you question Mostofa Hawladar? 

Witness: 18-8-2010. I questioned and recorded his statements. The time was 14:45 P.M. to 18:00 P.M. 

Defence: What is the place for questioning? 

Witness: In front of Manik Poshari’s house at Chitolia village. 

Defence: Did you visit Mostofa Hawladar’s house? 

Witness: No. 

Defence: Did you give him a notice to be present? 

Witness: No. I didn’t give him a specific notice; rather I have sent a notice to local Police Station for his appearance. But I have informed Mr. Mahbubul Haque and Mr. Manik Poshari to be present and then informed the Police Station. On 16-8-2010 I’ve informed Mr. Mahbubul Haque and Mr. Manik Poshari; over telephone. 

Defence: Whether Mostofa Hawladar and Mostofa Kholifa is the same person?
Witness: No. 

Defence: Who is the complainant of GD no- 1010 and 1011; dated- 24-11-2010 of Pirojpur Police Station? 

Witness: Mr. Abdul Kader is the complainant. And Ajmol Pasa and Mojammel are the accused. Mr. Abdul Kader is not the witness in this case. 

Defence: Who is the complainant of GD no- 1367 and 1011; dated- 29-05-2010 of Pirojpur Police Station? 

Witness: Manik Poshari is the complainant and the accused are- 1. Mostofa Akond; Father- Late Sattar Akond from village- Badura; 2. Md. Mizanur Rahman; Chitolia, Police Station and District- Pirojpur. 

Defence: Who is the complainant of GD no- 670; dated- 15-05-2010 of Pirojpur Police Station? 

Witness: Mr. Sultan Ahmed is the complainant and Md. Mizanur Rahman, Md. Farid, Md. Jasim, Shah Alam, Rashid Boyati are the accused. 

Defence: Mr. Mostofa Hawladar is the complainant and Mr. Ajmol Pasha, Abdur Rashid are the accused for the GD no- 747; dated- 24-11-2010 of Zianagar Police Station? 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: Mr. Mostofa Hawladar is the complainant and Mr. Ajmol Pasha and Abdur Rashid Boyati are the accused of the GD no- 685; dated- 22-11-2010 of Zianagar Police Station? 

Witness: Yes 

Adjournment for lunch

Defence: Did you tell us whether the GD no. 1 to 5 has been dismissed by the Magistrate because of getting no allegation.

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Did you inform Mr. Abdul Hanan (Inspector general of Investigation agency) about these GDs.

Witness: Yes, I have informed.

Defence: When did you inform him?

Witness: On 16.01.2011.

Defence: Before 16.01.2011, how many statements of witnesses were recorded by you?

Witness: Statement of everyone was recorded before that time.

Defence: There are two persons (Abdul Kader and Mustafa Khalifa) who are not witness of this case, still you included them in the threatened list witness.

Witness: Yes, because when I interviewed them, I was not sure that I would not include them as witness.

Defence: That means, you did not record their statement having their relation with this case.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Do you know Mustafa Sayedee is a brother of Delwer Hossain Saydee?

Witness: Yes, I have heard.

Defence: Did you get any GD which was filed against Mustafa Saydee?

Witness: No, I did not.

Defence: Was any witness obstructed to go Hasina Academy (a place where witness gave their deposition).

Witness: It is not true. I did not record any statement at Hasina Academy.

Defence: You intentionally filed this GD.

Witness: It is not true.

At around this point there was an interaction between the tribunal and the defence:

The chairman said that they would now use guillotine to restrict cross examination on these 'general diaries' GDs. These are irrelevant.

The defence lawyer argued that the Prosecution has used these GDs earlier to oppose our bail applications. They wanted to show that Sayedee’s people were threatening the PWs. But we want to show that these GDs re false. This shows the malafide intention behind this proceeding aginst Sayedee. It will affect the credibility of the IO (PW 28).

The chairman responded by saying that this did not however relate to any events of 1971. You cannot ask question on those GDs. We will use guillotine.

The defence lawyer said that if the tribunal had used this guillotine at the time of examination in chief of the IO then my cross examination would have been shorter. You allowed the invsetigation officer to exhibit these documents. Now you are saying that these are irrelevant.

The chairman responded that this is first case in this Tribunal and we are learning every day.

Defence: When did you go to Pirojpur to prepare a map of Pirojpur mass-grave and killing field?

Witness: On 2.02.2011.

Defence: To whom did you gave the responsibility to prepare Map of GIS department?

Witness: The responsibility was given to Mr. Khaled Hossain geographical officer, Naznin and nazma graphics Specialist under the leadership of Ahsan Habib of GIS (geographical Information system) department of LGED (local government engineering department).

Defence: Would you please tell us the date when they handed over the Map to you?

Witness: On 3.05.11, I went there and took it in my possession.

Defence: Did you hand it (Map) over to the Prosecution for producing before the Tribunal?

Witness: Yes, I have given these separately.

Defence: You did not produce it before the Tribunal before producing witness before the Tribunal.

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: Is there any information written at this map that it is prepared by Mr. Khaled Hossain geographical officer, Naznin and nazma graphics Sapecialist under the leadership of Ahsan Habib

Witness: No.

Defence: Is this map prepared by their hand or it is a copy of the orginial?

Witness: Basically it is a copy of an original, they gave me the soft copy and I printed it out.

Defence: Is there is any scale of this map?

Witness: No, scale is not maintained, It has been informed from the GIS (geographical Information system) department of LGED (local government engineering department) that they followed a definite shape and in that case it is not possible to follow any scale.

Defence: Do you have any idea upon the scale?

Witness: No, I did not.

Defence: Did you include them as witness?

Witness: No.

Defence: There is some statements in this map. Would you please tell us who give this statement?

Witness: I have given this statement.

Defence: Without the description of serial no. A and B at this map. There are names of 27 other places at this map.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you give legend for marking the sign at this map?

Witness: No, it was not possible.

Defence: Did you see any other map of any other districts which is not prepared by the LGED?

Witness: No.

Defence: There are 23 pictures of Mass-grave and killing field at this map. My question is did you prepare this?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Would you please tell us when you take the picture of serial no. 1, 2, 5, 26, 27?

Witness: Serial no. 1 and 2 was taken on 20. 09. 10, serial no. 5 was taken on 26. 01.11. and serial no. 27 was taken on 18.08.10.

Defence: Without serial no. 1, 2, 5, 26, 17 all other places are not related with this case?

Witness:Yes.

Defence: In serial no.26, it is a picture of Parerhaat killing field.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Parerhaat is a union of Zianagar.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You have sought a map of Zianagar Upazilla including listing killing fields and list martyrs during the Liberation War whose report no is 8.6. 8. 0. 1. 8. 15. 00. 111. 2010. 553 dated 27.08.10 from the district administrator of Pirojpur.

Witness: Yes, for the sake of investigation I have collected information all over the country.

3 June 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 18

After the tribunal passed its order relating to the witness recall application submitted by the defense, the cross examination of Helal Uddin the investigation officer involved in Sayedee’s case continued with the defence lawyer Mizanul Islam asking the questions (continuing from the previous week)

Defence: On 18 December, 2000- the Daily Janakantha has published a report about the Pir [a muslim saint] of Shorshina- named Abu Jafor Saleh; under the title ‘Shei Razakar’.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Do you know the name of his father?

Witness: No.

Defence: From which year did the Pir started running his abode?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: In 1957-1958 who was the then Pir of Shorshina?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Did you ask who the Pir was in 1957-1958 to Mr. Mohibullah Siddiqi who is the present Pir of Shorshina?

Witness: No.

Defence: How many children did the Pir have?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Who was the Officer in charge of Shorshina Police Station in 1971?

Witness: I didn’t get any information about that.

Defence: Did you send any letter or notice to the ASP of the Barishal Police Station?

Witness: No.

Defence: Do you have any documentary evidence about the transfer of the aforementioned Police Station to the nearby area of the abode of the Pir of Shorshina?

Witness: No.

Defence: On 11 December, 1971 the Pir has surrendered with so many Razakars, do you have any information in support of this?

Witness: No.

Defence: Before sending him to the Jail custody he was confined in his abode.

Witness: I do not possess any information in support of that.

Defence: In the report it has been mentioned that a particular group started moving forward to kill the Pir.

Witness: I didn’t investigate the matter.

Defence: This report has mentioned that a leader has sent him to the Jail Custody.

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: You did not give any information whether any case has been filed against the Pir?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the report that he has been set free by the general amnesty of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Do you know anything about this?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether the Pir was convicted?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Do you have any documentary proof about the Fatwa given by the Pir?

Witness: I didn’t find it in my investigation. But it is a known fact in the vicinity.

Defence: The report has mentioned the formation of Razakar team at Lalkuti of Dhaka.

Witness: I didn’t investigate anything about that.

Defence: Did you investigate the source and the information of the aforesaid report?

Witness: I have gone through the report but I didn’t review the source.

Defence: The “Shadhinota Juddher Dolil- 8th volume” has been mentioned here as the source.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You have checked so many websites for finding out information.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In any website you have found any information about the aforementioned book.

Witness: It is not in my record.

Defence: Did you send any letter to the information ministry to find out whether there has been any publication from the Government initiative about the compilation of the papers, documents and other useful resources of the liberation war.

Witness: I didn’t send a letter. But as far as I know the investigation agency has sent a letter.

Defence: Could you mention the date of issuing the letter.

Witness: Right now I can’t remember.

Defence: Whether there has been any reply from the Information Ministry, did you try to find out the information from the Investigation Agency?

Witness: It is not right now in my record. So, I can’t say anything about it.

Defence: ON 15 May, 1971 at first the Razakar team has been formed.

Witness: Not true. It has been formed within the very first days of May, 1971.

Defence: Various Newspapers has published reports about the formation of Razakar team.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Look at your collection of the newspapers and tell me- on which date the following report has been published in the newspapers?

Witness: I don’t have the note about this, so can’t say anything.

Defence: Who was the reporter of the highlighted report of Daily Janakantha of 21-12-2000?

Witness: I didn’t tried to find out or make him the witness or interview him.

Justice Nizamul Huq: This question is expunged as it is not relevant to the case of Mr. Syedee. We will now use guillotine to restrict your cross examination. These exhibits do not contain Mr. Sayedee’s name. You do not need to ask question on all other exhibits which which are not relevant to Mr. Sayedee- the accused or about Pirojpur district.

Defence: My Lord, then in that case why has the prosecution submitted such voluminous and irrelevant documents and papers and ywhy ou allowed them to exhibit these documents. I have right to cross examine these documents. I can assure you that I will be very precise in cross examining on the Prosecution documents where there is no information about Mr. Sayedee.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Why they submitted it is their matter and what you have to ask is your matter. But the matter here is that-non relevant questions will no more be heard. We will not consider these documents in our judgment. You should cross examine only those documents that contain Mr. Sayedee’s name or the incidents of this case.

Defence: Then place pass a written order to this effect.

Justice Nizamul Huq: We do not need to pass any written order. We can ensure you that we will not consider these documents in our Judgments.

Okay. I would like to ask a relevant question.

Defence: You didn’t investigate about the reports which don’t contain the name of the accused Mr. Sayedee.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You have collected a list of Razakars [material exhibit-35] from the website www.warcriminalbd.org. The source of the website has not been mentioned. There is an e-mail address over the exhibit-35. Whose e-mail id is this?

Witness: Dr. MA Hasan.

Defence: Exhibit-35 shows a title—“Ekattorer Juddhaporadh, Manobotabirodhi Oporadh o Gonohotta shongshilshto Oporadhider Talika.”

Witness: Yes.

Defence: This list does not contain the names of the main perpetrators of 1971 liberation war.

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you interrogate Mr. MA Hasan to find the accuracy of the xhibit-35?

Witness: No I didn’t go to iinterview him. But my colleague another investigation officer Monoara Begum has gone on 28-4-2011 to ask him. Afterwards she has given me the information. She has not been made a witness in this case. I have not recorded her statements.

Defence: Whether War Crimes Fact Finding Committee and the Truth Commission for Genocide in Bangladesh are two separate organizations?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you can mention the name of the Chief and other members of the aforementioned organizations?

Witness: No.

Defence: Can you say- whether anyone from the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee has gone to Pirojpur?

Witness: No.

Defence: From which source the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee has provided the list, did you investigate?

Witness: No.

Defence: Do you have any idea about the Truth Commission?

Witness: I don’t have any specific idea.

Defence: Who was the first convener of the Truth Commission?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether any person of Pirojpur has confessed his offence to the Truth Commission- do you have any information about that?

Witness: No.

Defence: Based on the statements of which people, the Truth Commission has prepared the list of Razakars, do you have any information?

Witness:No.

Defence: Have you checked the aforementioned email address to collect whether it also contain the list of razakar?

Witness: It is not necessary as the website does contain the same list.

Defence: Did you investigate whether the following organizations have prepared any report after their investigation to prepare a list of razakars.

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether Dr. MA Hasan, War Crimes Fact Finding Committee and the Truth Commission for Genocide in Bangladesh hold the domain hosting or the domain admin—did you investigate?

Witness: I have confirmed the website is owned by them, but I don’t know who possess the domain hosting or the domain admin.

Defence: Did you send any letter to anyone to find out the information about the source of the domain hosting or the domain admin?

Witness: No.

Defence: From which country the website is being operated?

Witness: It is not in my knowledge.

The court was adjourned till 2 P.M.

After lunch, the tribunal had s short hearing on the defence's application concerning witness submission. This is set out on on a separate page.

After that the cross examination of the investigation officer continued

Defence: There is list of Razakaar which is submitted by you. At that list there is only name of three razakaar in Noakhali district and name of one razakaar from Brahmanbaria district of Chittagong Division. 

Witness: Yes. 

Mizahul Islam: 3 razakaar from Pabna district. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: 13 razakaar from Faridpur. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: 1 from Shariatpur district. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: Did you collect any information regarding those razakars who were arrested after the liberation war? 

Witness: No, I did not get any information. 

Defence: Did you analyse the then SDO court of register after the Liberation War? 

Witness: No. 

Defence: In which jail custody were prisoners of Pirojpur sent? 

Witness: I did not collect information in this regard. 

Defence: Did you collect information whether any razakaar of Pirojpur was arrested under Collaborators Act? 

Witness: No, I did not collect any information. 

Defence: Did you question freedom fighter Shahjahan Hossain (Bir-bikaram) about whether he arrested any razakaar of the Pirojpur or not? 

Witness: No, I did not ask him. 

Defence: Did you question Sub-sector Commander Mejor Jiauddin? 

Witness: Yes, I have questiond him. 

Defence: Did you question Second-in command Sahmsul alam talukder of Sub-sector Commander Mejor Jiauddin? 

Witness: No, I did not. 

Defence: Did you collect information from the Register of the district court of Barishal who are prosecuted under the Collaboratos Act? 

Witness: No, I did not. 

Defence: When you were assigned to investigate this case, you sent a letter to the district administrator of Pirojpur for collecting all information of Pirojpur during liberation war. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: After that they have sent you all information of Pirojpur except one thana. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence:  There was a report of commander in freedom fighter of Zianagar Upazilla. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: Theere was list of Razakkar in Pirojpur district at that report. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: How many persons are mentioned at that report? 

Witness: 67 persons. 

Defence: On exhibit 156, you have shown that Witnesses in this case are threatened. My question is when you get information in this regard? 

Witness: I was informed by witness Manik Poshari in 18. 08.10. 

Defence: Did you take any initiative when you were being informed. Did you go to the Police station? 

Witness: I advised them (Witness) to be careful and said to the officer-in-charge of the police station to take care of them and take adequate measures if any GD was filed by the 

Witness. 

Defence: That means Officer-in-charge of the police station was not able to give you information at that moment whether any GD was filed or not? 

Witness: No, he did not but he assured me that he would inform me after seeing their file. 

Defence: That means O.C has informed you later. 

Witness: Yes. 

Defence: When? 

Witness: On 19.08.10, he informed me about two G.D and said investigation was going on. 

Defence: Could you tell me the GD number? 

Witness: One GD no 673 dated on: 5.05.10 and another is GD no 1367 dated on: 29.05.2010. 

Defence: Did you inform any other persons regarding these GD? 

Witness: Yes, I have informed it to the Inspector General Abdul Hannan. 

Defence: Did you inform him on any other GD? 

Witness: Yes, I have informed him about 5 other GD. 

Defence: GD no.337 dated on: 14.01.2011, Zianagar, Indurkani thana is the last GD? 

Witness:  Yes. 

Defence: Who filed this GD? 

Witness: Mustafa Khalifa village Huglabunia. 

Defence: Against whom? 

Witness: Against Md. Zahid, Fathers name: Abdul Latif  Mullah, Village: Umedpur. 

Defence: Then on 23.02.11, Mustafa Khalifa withdraw his GD and solved this matter among themselves. 

Witness: Yes, by a local meeting the problem was solved among them and then investigation was stopped. 

Defence: There is no Witness in this case whose name is Mustafa Khalifa. 

Witness: Yes, he is not a Witness of the case but I have questioned him. 

Then the court is adjourned.