Tuesday, July 24, 2012

8 Jul 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 28

Tribunal one

Sayedee food book applications
After giving the order on prosecution application to interview Quasem Ali i, Justice Nizmaul Huq has directed Mr. Tajul Islam to read again his application on the matter of supplying home cooked food.

The tribunal chairman then said that he wanted the defence to make an application to the proper authority and the tribunal will then pass a quick order afterward.

Then he instructed Islam to read out the next application which is about supplying the books to the accused. Then the tribunal chairman again asked him to apply to the jail authority

Tajul Islam said that the tribunal had already allowed the application earlier.

Chairman responded by saying that the tribunal now thinks that you should have applied to the jail authority first. ‘Our order is ready. File the application and come to us. ‘

Case timings
The chairman then said that the stenographer was going on for vacation for 9, 10 and 11 July so the tribunal cannot record any evidence on those days. We want to adjourn Nizami’s matter for tomorrow for opening statement of the prosecution and we will not need any typist for that opening statement. The matter of Mobarek Hossain is also adjourned for tomorrow. Golam Azam’s case will be adjourned until 12th July 2012 for witness.

Sayedee IO cross examination
The chairman then said that he would hear Sayedee’s case now.

Mizanul Islam, the defence lawyer said, that today he was prepared for the Azam case and that he was not prepared for Sayedee case which is usually the last item.

The chairman said that he should start the Sayedee case now as the tribunal wants to release the invstigation officer as soon as possible. We may continue until 2.00 pm and then adjourn for today. We will fix this case again on Thursday, 12th July 2012.

Cross examination of investigation officer continued from the previous week

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Mizanul, today we will not fix any timeframe, but be prepared to get a time limit, because Investigation Officer has other responsibilities too

Mizanul Islam: I will not take any unreasonable time My Lord.
Defence: There is no existence of ‘L’ marked location in Exhibit-36 which has been mentioned in exhibit-37.

Witness: Yes. There is not. It is for typing mistake.

Defence: Whether the house where Mr. Modhusudan Ghorami is presently living is his own house?

Witness: The house is owned by him and his late brother. But now the full house is known as Modhusudan’s house.

Defence: When did you first meet Mr. Modhusudan?

Witness: On 03-11-2010 at his house.

Defence: There the ‘A’ marked place on the exhibit-36 is Modhusudan’s house?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the arrow marked thing on the south side of the house?

Witness: It is the narrow road of entrance of the house.

Defence: The south part of the road is marked as ‘J’, whether it is the Hoglabunia village?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Abdur Razzak then appeared and drew the attention of the Tribunal members about the next day’s attendance of Mr. Nizami at the Chittagong District Court concerning the 10 truck arms case, so the opening statements ought not be done tomorrow without his presence. The Justice said the opening statement might be done without his presence. Let it see tomorrow.]

Defence: There is another road on the more western side.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether there are any dwelling houses in between these two roads?

Witness: It has not been included in my record.

Defence: The ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ marked house is owned by respectively Mr. Toroni Shikdar, Horolal Kormokar, Prokash Shikdar. There are no houses in between these houses.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The Hoglabunia village ends following the narrow road beside the ‘C’ marked house.

Witness: Approximately Hoglabunia village ends at the 2 miles forwarded end of the road.

Defence: There is an ‘I’ marked large road in the eastern side of the A, B, C, D mark.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Parerhat Bazar is at the adjacent east side of the large road?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Who is the owner of ‘F’ marked shop?

Witness: Mostofa Hawladar, who is a witness of this case.

Defence: There is a ‘G’ marked passenger stoppage at the south side of the ‘F’ marked place.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the distance between F and G?

Witness: It has not been mentioned clearly.

Defence: Can you mention the name of the owner of F marked Ice Factory?

Witness: Babul Khan. He is not a witness in this case and I have not inteviewed him.

Defence: The Parerhat Bazar starts from the south side of the Hoglabunia village.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the distance between C and F marked place from the north-eastern side?

Witness: Quarter of a kilometer.

Defence: Whether you have interrogated the owners of the C, D, E marked houses?

Witness: They all are dead, so they were not required to be interrogated.

Defence: Whether you have interrogated any family members of the owners of these houses?

Witness: I have talked with the son of Toroni Shikdar, named- Keshto Shikdar, aged-47 years; but as he is 47 years old, I didn’t make him a witness. I have talked with a son of Prokash Shikdar, but as he is also a very young man, so I didn’t make him a witness for this case.

Defence: Whether the wives of those deceased people are alive?

Witness: Toroni Shikdar’s wife has died, but other two are alive. But they didn’t come forward to me.

Defence: Have you mentioned the matter of their non appearance in your note?

Witness: No.

Defence: When did you talk with Keshto Shikdar?

Witness: On 3-11-2010

Defence: Whether a man named Gonesh who is less than 47 years have been made a witness for this case?

Witness: Yes. He is 45 years old and I have interviewed him on 6-4-2011.

Defence: Gonesh’s mother’s name is Vagirothi.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the distance of the place of killing of Vagirothi from her house?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: You have not found any man beside the C, D, E marked houses who are elder than 60 years.

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: Nikunjo Ghorami’s wife was also there at the house just before the wife of Modhusudon Ghorami named Shefali Ghorami was being raped.

Witness: Yes. She is residing at the same house till date.

Defence: There are other people than Modhusudon Ghorami and Nikunjo Ghorami’s wife who are living in the house.

Witness: It is not correct that here are other peoples who are living in the house; only Modhusudon Ghorami’s niece (daughter of Nikonjo Ghorami) is also living at the house with the above mentioned persons.

Defence: What is the amount of property of Modhusudan Ghorami and Nikunjo Ghorami?

Witness: I know nothing about the status of the property.

Defence: Mr. Abu Said Talukdar alias Panna Talukdar is the owner of the B marked house. Whether you have interrogated him?

Witness: No.

Defence: Mr. Talukdar’s house is adjacent to the western side of the house of Modhusudan Ghorami.

Witness: It is not right at the western side. There is a pond in the middle.

Defence: The adjacent house at the eastern side of Modhusudan Ghorami is owned by the sons of Shohiduddin named Abdus Sobhan and Sultan.

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: There are two adjacent houses at the eastern side of Modhusudan’s house,

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There is an adjacent house at the north side which is owned by deeds writer Meher Ali.

Witness: There is an adjacent house. But I don’t know who owns this house.

Defence: Whether you have interviewed any family members of these houses?

Witness: No.

Defence: I state that Modhusudan Ghorami has sold the part of his property with the house to Mr. Sobhan and Mr. Sultan 2 years before 1971. You are trying to conceal the fact.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Modhusudan Ghorami’s house is situated in at distinct village of the north side of village Hoglabunia.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: How many rooms are there where Mr. Modhusudan is living at present?

Witness: 1 room.

Defence: Modhusudan Ghorami used to stay in a distinct room two rooms away from his present room.

Witness: No. He used to live in the same room.

Defence: Whether Modhusudan’s wife used to stay in the same room on 1971?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the daughter’s name of Nikunjo Ghorami?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: Whether you have asked the daughter that whether she knows where does her Aunt Shefali Ghorami is residing at India?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: Modhusudan’s in-laws house is situated at the village- Kochubunia, Police Station- Nolbunia, and District- Bagerhat.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you have asked about the latest position of Shefali Ghorami to her father Mr. Srinath Shikdar and her brother- Kartik Shikdar or to any other people of that village?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether you have served any letter to the Kolkata CID to know the present position of Shefali Ghorami?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether you have served any letter to the West Bengal Police Department- Lalbazar?

Witness: No.

Defence: Have you collected any information how old was Shefali Ghorami at 1971?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: Whether have you found any people aged over 60 years and residing at the locality of Modhushudan Ghorami’s house?

Witness: Yes, several of them are the witness of this case.

Defence: Is there any women witness?

Witness: Usha Rani Malakar and I can’t remember other’s name at this moment.

Defence: Where is the house of Usha Rani?

Witness: Parerhat.

Defence: Parerhat, Kormokarpotti and Hindu Para are different places.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Hindupara is a part of KormokarPotti.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Umedpur Hindupara is located at the western side of Parerhat Bazar.

Witness: Yes and some parts fall on the northern side of Parerhat Bazar also.

Defence: Tangrakhali and Umedpur are adjacent to each other.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The ‘I’ marked place in exhibit- 38 id Parerhat Police Camp.

Witness: Yes.

[At this moment Mizanul Islam handed over the duty to ask question to another defence Counsel Manzur Ahmed Ansari. It was at 1:40 A.M. And Mr. Manzur started asking question to the IO.]

Defence: The ‘J’ marked place is Parerhat Rajlokkhi High School.

Witness: Yes. There was Pakistan Army Camp at this place.

Defence: What is the present status of the ‘I’ marked Police Camp of 1971?

Witness: I can’t say.

Defence: Whether the police Camp of 1971 was situated at the North-Western zone of the school?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: By marking three ‘K’ marks you have mentioned the Parerhat bazaar.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: By the mark ‘A to H’ you have mentioned the Hindu dwelling houses of Umedpur Hindu area.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The ‘A’ marked house is possessed by Anil Mondol, father- Late Nurul Mondol.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Anil Mondol is alive?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Anil Mondol was married in 1971?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: When you were interrogating Mr. Anil, then whether his wife was in the room?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: The ‘B’ marked house is owned by Mr. Shekhor, father- Late Mokem Thakur.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Shekhor was alive during your investigation?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: You have found one Moni Thakur [aged- 35 years] who is the son of Mokem Thakur at the ‘B’ marked house.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Mokem Thakur’s wife was alive during the investigation?

Witness: It has not been mentioned in my note.

Defence: Shekhor and Anil Mondol’s houses are adjacent to each others.

Witness: Yes.
Justice Nizamul Huq: Okay the Court is adjourned for today.

Tanvir Ahmed Al-Amin then mentioned a couple of things to the tribunal. In the application for home cooked food you said that the accused had filed the application to the jail authority before the tribunal’s observation. But in fact this application was filed after the tribunal had made the observation and we have made a statement in this regard in our application before the Tribunal. Why should we again file the application?

Chairman: No, you should again file the application to the jail authority.

Tanvir: but this will merely delay the matter. DHS is suffering as a result of this delay.

Chairman: our order is ready. Just file the application and bring it to us.

Tanvir: You earlier allowed Mr. Azad as attendant to stay with Sayedee in Hospital. For the last 6/7 days the Jail authority allowed the attendant to do this. But since then the attendant is detained with the Accused. The Jail authority is not allowing Mr. Azad to come out from that room. So far as I know you did not pass any custody order for Mr. Azad.

Chairman: the Jail authority cannot do this. Prosecutor (Haider Ali) you should talk with Jail authority about this. I do not think that we need to pass any order about this.

Prosecutor Ok, I will talk with the Jail authority.

No comments:

Post a Comment