Sunday, July 22, 2012

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?


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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment