Tuesday, 15th October, 2019
Choose Language:

Latest
Tribunal
The third day of the Prosecution argument: what kind of decision can we take on self-contradictory statements?
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May, 2013
The third day of the final arguments (arguments) has been held in the case of so called crimes against humanity against Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General and former Minister Ali Ahsan Mohammad Muzahid on last Wednesday. Tribunal said asking for explanation about self- contradictory statements of witness what kind of decision can we take about it. Witnesses Chittaranjan Saha said that he did not see Muzahid at Bagh char village in Faridpur during incident. But he has heard from some person of local market. That day the Razaker with Pakistani forces came by Jip car over the Khalil pur market. He heard that Muzahid was with them. But he did not see anyone of them. Because, the car ran away very quickly. On the other hand 13 no witness Shaki Saha said in his Mr. Muzahid occurs the killing at stry Angan in Bagh Char. The father of witness has been killed there. But the same witness said in his deposition that there is a pistol in Muzahid’s hand. Muzahid himself fired. This witness has given contradictory statements in his deposition.  Tribunal said which statement of witness is correct? And which statement we will take? Prosecutions No. 7 witness ranjin Kumar Nath or Babu Nath said that Mujahid directed to kill detained person by saying, \'osako hatao\'. But Tribunal member Sahinur Islam said it is not meant to kill any person by osako hatao. It is also not meant to detain any person. So we are not satisfied in your argument. The prosecutor said basically it will be meant by it that Muzahid will be responsible for that the incident which occurred that day. Then Tribunal said that Muzahid will be responsible for everything if he is home. The Chairman of the Tribunal Justice Obaidul Hasan said with laughing Mr. Prosecutor, don’t handle with the case. Because the case may be hampered for it. Why not, the building can fall when it is handled. Then, in 4 no allegations (Abu Yusuf bird’s torture) Tribunal said that Abul Kalam Azad has not been convicted in this case when hearing starts. So what do you want to prove by hearing against Muzahid. 5 No witness Rustam Ali said Nizami and Muzahid came and went to Mohammed Pur Physical Training College. But he does not know that whether Muzahid was involved with any killing. In 1 no allegation of this case Muzahid is also convicted about the killing of the journalist Siraj Uddin. But one of the witness of this case Sahin Reza Nur acknowledged in his deposition that he filed a case asking for justice about the killing of his father in Ramna police station in 1972. He was a witness of this case.  But Muzahid has not been convicted in this case. Even his mother has written memorial writings with the killing of his father after liberation But they did not convict Muzahid.