Tuesday, March 19, 2013

12 Nov 2012: Prosecution closing arguments day 6

 The prosecution continued with its closing arguments (from the previous day) in the case of Sayedee.
DW-3 Nurul Haque Hawladar’s father late Mokhles Uddin Hawladar was a member of Peace Committee; serial no-9. His Brother Samsul Haq Hawladar’s son – Solaiman is a known Razakar. In his statement he has stated that he has not seen Mr. Syedee in either Peace Committee Office or Razakar Camp. Whereas in the cross examination he has stated that he has not gone to the Peace Committee Office or Razakar Camp during operation. He has stated false things. His father was a member of peace committee, his nephew is a razakar and he is also against the cause of liberation war. His statements are not credible.
He made the following oral arguments
- He said that he came to depose in favor of Sayedee, so he is biased.
- He said DHS was not Rajakar.
- How did he know that conversions were done willingly.
- His nephew Solaiman Hawlader was a Rajakar.
- As per his statement 5/6 shops in Parerhat were looted but other witnesses stated about 30/35 shops were looted,
- Motivated witness.
- He was not there during conversion.
- Because he had affiliation with Pakistani Army, at the time of his going to Parerhat, he was never disturbed by Rjakars or Pakistani Army.
- His father was a Rajakar, his family was Rajakar family.
- He is involved with Jamat e Islami.
- He cannot say about the age of Gourango.
Chairmen said: it appears that he is not a reliable witness.
DW-9 Hemayet Uddin- he has heard the story of confining Bisabali from other person. The Pakistan Army and razakars have taken Bisabali with them for the reason of looting and arson and then they have killed him by taking to the bank of Boleswor River- it is not believable. He is a leader of BNP. BNP and Jamate Islami are aligned so he has given false statements to save Delwar Hossain Syedee.
He also made the following oral arguments:
- He saw the incidents from a distant place.
- He did not see the particulars of the incidents.
- He only heard about Bishabali’s incidents from a person called Afzal but did no
see the incidents himself
- Bishabali’s incidents is only hearsay.
- According to him Pakistani Army was 15/16 in numbers, so he is not specific about the numbers.
- His ability to see from the garden is doubtful.
- Presence of the accused was not denied.
- He is politically motivated.
- He only can remember the number of Pak army and Bishabali’s involvement, he saw nothing else.
DW-15 Abdus Salam Hawladar has given total false facts in his statements. His statements are self contradictory so it is not credible. 
He made the following oral arguments
- he saw the incidents of Nuru Kha.
- he saw the fume of Manik Poshari’s house.
- he said that Nuru Kha left home before war started. How it is possible?
- He came to the tribunal, motivated with a purpose.
In response to a question from the tribunal that if the defense argued that Awal only said that ‘ I have heard that DHS may have been involved’ so his statement got a little evidentiary value, what is your reply, Haider Ali said that hearsay has some evidentiary value in this Act.

Jin response to a question that if it is your case that defense witness are from a specific political party, so they are biased, why then is MP of Awami League not biased, the prosecutor said that his statements are substantiated by other evidence - Awal used to get information from sources, and his statements is substantiated by other witnesses.
DW-16 Abdul Halim Fakir has stated in his deposition that- there’s no freedom fighter in Tengrakhali village. The PW Mahbubul Alam Hawladar is a resident of his village who is a freedom fighter. So, it is found that- he has given false statement. 
He said in oral argument that 
- he cannot say the incidents in detail.
- he was anti liberation force.
- he only knows about Peace Committee, not Rajakars.
- he did not know DHS properly.
- he was not in oriental list of 48 defense witness, so it is not legally admissible.
- he has been economically benfited.
DW-17 Ganesh Chandra Saha was about 4 or 5 years old at the time of liberation war. He has admitted that- he has given statements before the Investigation Officer. On the issue of 3rd February, 1972 of Daily Azad his mother’s age has been mentioned as 18 years. Ganesh has stated in the deposition that he is 51 years old and he has an elder brother. So, if on that time Vagirothi was 18 years old and if Ganesh is 51 years old now then it is found that Vagirothi has given birth of the son at the age of 5. So his statement is not in no way credible and the statements given to the Investigation Officer has been taken as evidence already. 
DW-3, DW-9, DW-13, DW-15, DW-16, DW-17 has not stated anything about the location of Delwar Hossain Syedee on 1971 liberation war during the deposition and cross examionation.They have given contradictory statements with the other defence witnesses. 
They have given false statement to save the accused Delwar Hossain Syedee. 
As an important document of liberation war and the declaration of liberation the Bangabandhu’s historical speech on 7th March, the declaration of independence as exhibit- 253, Razakar Ordinance as exhibit- 252, 252/1, 252/2 and other papers and documents have been produced before the Tribunal. 
After the above discussion it is found that- the Prosecution has been able to prove the 19 charges except charge no-20 without any doubt and the accused is liable to be observing highest punishment; so hereby the Prosecution is praying before the Tribunal to punish the accused to the highest degree under the present Law.

No comments:

Post a Comment