Sunday, July 22, 2012

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.


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment