Wednesday, 23rd October, 2019
Choose Language:

Latest
Tribunal
The information of witnesses is contradictory in the incident of killing Badiuzzaman and principal Hannan: the case of kamaruzzam.
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Saturday, 13 April, 2013.
Two types of misleading information has been given in the witness’s testimony in one number charge in the incident of killing Badiuzzaman consisted the case against Jamaat-e-Islami Assistant Secretary General kamaruzzaman. Two witnesses in this case are not eye witness in the incident of killing Badiuzzaman. Fourth and sixth witness of state wings Fakir Abdul Mannan Dr. Hasanuzzaman gave testimony at Tribunal in the incident of killing Badiuzzaman during 71. Witness Fakir Abdul Mannan was in India at the time of the incident and later he heard it from someone about the killing of badiuzzaman.  And witness Dr. Hasanuzzaman never goes to his father in law’s house during 71. Later he heard it. The team\'s main defense lawyer, Barrister Abdur Razzak has showed Tribunal that testimony of two witnesses is contradictory and confusing. It seems that they are not eye witness. According to the law it is not possible to punish someone on the basis of this testimony. Barrister Abdur Razzak shows that fourth witness Fakir Abdul Mannan said Badiuzzaman worked in Pakistan army. Badiuzzaman took refuge for not going India Ahmed Ali member’s house considering as safe.
On the other hand sixth witness Dr.Hasanuzzaman said that the camp of Ahamad Nagar school was near my father in law’s house so my brother goes to my father in law’s house for reki in that camp at afternoon in 29 June 1971. I heard from my father that my brother went to India for one time in 30 June secretly. But which month an which date and how much long he passed there I could not say. But the fourth witness said here that Badiuzzaman did not go to India. On the other hand sixth witness says he went to India. Barrister Abdur Razzak showed in presenting argument that these two witnesses have given contradictory speech about abducting Badiuzzaman. Fourth witness said about abducting Badiuzzaman that one day night some of Badar forces and the member of Pak forces take out him Ahamad Nagar camps and they tortured and killed him there. And sixth witness said about at 11pm some armed groups of 10-11 people stands in my father in law’s house and called brother, brother and introduce themselves as a freedom forces. My uncle in law Maqbool Hussain said them to be sited and give them some food to eat. They take out my brother to camp. At that time Maqbool Hussain saw a magazine with fire and he goes to them to return it. Fourth witness said about Dr. Ahmed Hasanuzzaman‘s father-in-law Ahmed Ali member he was a leader of the peace committee. Case was filed against him. Later he took punishment. Badiuzzaman’s brother’s father-in-law is my uncle he supported Muslim league and was against freedom. Barrister Razzak claimed that testimony of these two witnesses involving kamaruzzaman is confusing and contradictory. Last 6 August fourth witness Fakir Abdul Mannan said in his deposition at Tribunal-2 that he returns from India after liberation war and he came to know from one named Saiyadur rahman in Sherpur Awami league office that Badiuzzaman is killed Al-badar. Going to India I worked in Cengapara Youth Camp as a Political mobilizer. I return in country 16 December after liberation war. After liberation war Awami league leaders made a list of the person who have died in war and damaged. I had no role in making the list. General people gave information coming to Awami League leaders. I was in the office in the time of giving information. At that time. I heard from Saiyadur Rahman in Ahamad Nagar one person took refuge in his son in law’s house. His name is Badiuzzaman. Badiuzzaman(Bengali) worked in Pakistan army. Badiuzzaman was killed taking out camp. Then the leaders of the Awami League asked whether he saw the incident. He answered that he did not see it. He heard it from Maqbool Hussain. Maqbool Hussain is still alive.
There is confusion in evidence of Principal Hannan.: Barrister Abdur Razzak showed the Tribunal about torture which is being done on principal Hannan and said that there are many disorders and confusion in 2 number charges which was taken against kamaruzzaman. For this reason this depositions of these witnesses cannot be accepted. Barrister Abdur Razzak said that the witnesses have given tree types of speech in their deposition. One witness said he was tortured in October. Another said it may be April or May. And another said that it may be July. Barrister Razzak said there are a lot of disorders in it. Which of this we will take. Barrister Razzak said one witness said that he has begged 5 taka. Which is abnormal? Because that time the price of rice was 50. Barrister Razzak said more second witness Zahur Munshi said about a witness he often comes to the house of Suran Shaha but the witness said that he went his house only for one time. Barrister Razzak said if there is contradictory in Evidence of witnesses. It won’t be accepted. He said more the evidence which is given by witnesses to the investigation officer is not acceptable.