Day 2 of the cross examination by Mizanul Islam of Mr Helal Uddin, the investigation officer in the Sayedee case (following on from previous day)
Prosecutor Haider Ali said that the defence should not be allowed to cross examine on these technical matters as these cases are not relevant.
Mizanul Islam responded by saying that if these matters were irrelevant then why did the IO make statement about these cases in his examination in chief.
Justice Zaheer Ahmed then said that since it was said in the examination in chief the defence can ask question on that.
Mizanul Islam responded by saying that that the investigation officer mentioned this in his evidence in chief, so he can be cross examined about this.
Judge Anwarul Haq said that the defence could not do so. He said that the investigation officer did not investigate that case and he had no knowledge about it so you cannot ask this question.
Mizanul Islam said, that the investigation offier had said that the accused in this case is the man currently accused in the dock, which is not the case. ‘So why cannot I not refute this?’
The Judge asked how could the investigation officer talk about this case when it is a totally different one?
The defence lawyer responded by saying that in his evidence in chief the investgation officer testified that he had received a report on 17 cases of the accused, amongst which is this case. ‘That he included this one shows his male fide intention, so this is relelant.’
As the judge continued to say that this was not relevant, the defence lawyer said that he would file a review application on this matter.
Justice Anwarul Huq: Mr. Counsel, when someone is urging the ignorance about a matter, in that case is it necessary to inflict him with the same sorts of questions?
Defence: He had mentioned a case where he the case is all about accused who is a student of Rajshahi University, aged – 26 and holding the same name as the accused of our case. You have inserted the case knowingly.
Defence: You have mentioned in the report that the accused has been detained for the pending two cases, which has been submitted following an application to arrest Mr. Delwar Hossain Sydee.
Witness: Yes I have said so.
Defence: You have stated in the progress report that, at this stage I hereby submit this application. Is it possible to start another investigation during a pending state of a case?
Mizanul Islam said that he wanted to file an application to exclude certain counts from trial of this case since the investigation officer has admitted that those counts are under investigation in other previously instituted cases.
The chairman said that we will hear this application on the next date.
Witness: Remained silent.
Defence: You have submitted the name of 17 cases against the accused petitioner. You have stated about the first case that Police Inspector Monjurul Morsher, S.B. Dhaka was the informant of the Case No: 17 of Kodomtoli Police Station. I would like to know- whether he was the witness of the same case?
Witness: During the testimony, I got the source of these 17 cases among which except the case number 6 and 7 were not been evaluated by me.
Defence: Have you tried to find out the accuracy of the report given by these concern officers?
Witness: No.
Defence: Look at serial Number- 15; you have mentioned the name of 17 cases. Among those G.R. [General Registry] cases- other than the case number- 13, 14 & 16 others do not contain the name of the accused. Afterwards, there is no mention of his name in the Police Cases also. You have concealed the fact deliberately.
Witness: The name of the accused has been mentioned in serial no- 6 and 7.
Prosecutor Haider Ali said that the defence should not be allowed to cross examine on these technical matters as these cases are not relevant.
Mizanul Islam responded by saying that if these matters were irrelevant then why did the IO make statement about these cases in his examination in chief.
Justice Zaheer Ahmed then said that since it was said in the examination in chief the defence can ask question on that.
Defence: Among those G.R. [General Registry] cases- other than the case number- 13, 14 & 16 others do not contain the name of the accused. Afterwards, there is no mention of his name in the Police Cases also. You have concealed the fact deliberately. In the serial no- 13 which is about the case of Uttara Police station, there is neither the name of the accused nor has the police report been submitted. This case has been filed to harass him intentionally.Haider Ali said that this question is not relevant for this case.
The case which has been mentioned in serial no: 14 has been filed on 14th March, 2010 and yet no action was taken against him. You have concealed it knowingly. And the case of Serial No: 14 which is of Sherebangla Police Station, DMP Case No: 31-3-2010, it is not pending in the name of Mr. Sayedee. And you have concealed it knowingly. And the case which has been mentioned in serial no: 16 it is all about a student of Rajshahi University whose name is also Delwar Hossain Syedee. And you have also mentioned the erroneous case knowingly.
Witness: I’ve not evaluated the case, so I’m unable to say anything.
Mizanul Islam responded by saying that that the investigation officer mentioned this in his evidence in chief, so he can be cross examined about this.
Judge Anwarul Haq said that the defence could not do so. He said that the investigation officer did not investigate that case and he had no knowledge about it so you cannot ask this question.
Mizanul Islam said, that the investigation offier had said that the accused in this case is the man currently accused in the dock, which is not the case. ‘So why cannot I not refute this?’
The Judge asked how could the investigation officer talk about this case when it is a totally different one?
The defence lawyer responded by saying that in his evidence in chief the investgation officer testified that he had received a report on 17 cases of the accused, amongst which is this case. ‘That he included this one shows his male fide intention, so this is relelant.’
As the judge continued to say that this was not relevant, the defence lawyer said that he would file a review application on this matter.
Justice Anwarul Huq: Mr. Counsel, when someone is urging the ignorance about a matter, in that case is it necessary to inflict him with the same sorts of questions?
Defence: He had mentioned a case where he the case is all about accused who is a student of Rajshahi University, aged – 26 and holding the same name as the accused of our case. You have inserted the case knowingly.
Witness: It is the case of Rajshahi, Motihar Police Station, Date : 25-5-2009. I’ve received a report containing the information about this case from Mahabub Hossain, PPM, Additional DIG (Political), on behalf of Additional I.G. [Inspector General], Special Branch, Bangladesh Police. The cases as mentioned in the sources are not cases relating to crimes against humanity. So, I’ve not evaluated any other case than the above mentioned- No: 6 & 7 cases.Justice Nizamul Huq passed order (summary)
Defence: So you would like to say, you have neither looked at nor evaluated the report on the main case. And the cases you have mentioned all relate to Penal Code, except one case, which is about the ‘Shontrash Birodhi Ain’. And the Complaint Registrar cases you have mentioned have all been filed in the period of this Government.
Witness: I’ve already mentioned I’ve not evaluated those cases.
Accused Delwar Hossain Syedee has been produced before the tribunal and the cross examination has been started and yet not been completed. Yesterday Mr. Mizanul Islam has submitted that- he is physically sick and is not well prepared. And today he has prayed the same. We are considering the matter for his physical improvement. So the matter is adjourned till 7th May, 2012.Haider Ali complained about the length of the adjournment, but the tribunal chairman said that this was only four working days.
No comments:
Post a Comment