Thursday, September 26, 2013

Quader Molla appeal, day 21: Defence arguments

5 June 2013
To see previous day's proceedings

The defence counsel, Razak continued. “My Lord, yesterday I was in this part. Unfortunately, the I.O. did not say anything about this.” CJ asked him, “Did you cross examine I.O. on this point?” Razzaq replied, “yes, my lord.” CJ further asked, “Which paragraph of his cross examination? Can you please show us where is that?” Razzaq replied, “yes my lord, at page 626, 6th line from top.” He then read out the same.

Razzaq then moved to page 634, at PW-12 (I.O.) deposition. After he read certain part, Sinha J. stopped him and said, “You cannot say that the PW did not depose that to I.O.; the I.O. said, ‘the PW did not say that EXACTLY in that way’ that does not mean that the PW did not say that.”

Razzaq then moved to charge no. 6. He started to read out the charge at 10:25 am. He then read out the PW-3 Momena Begum and PW-12’s (I.O.) deposition. 

After he finished he reading out that he started to show the contradictions. 

At page 75, PW-3 deposed she cannot remember from which bank she cashed a cheque of 2000 taka which was given to her by Bangabondhu Sheikh Muzibur Rahman. Razzaq informed the bench on 28/09/2007, depositions were taken at Mirpur Jallad Khana of those whose relatives were killed there. There is a museum at the Jallad Khana. He then moved to page 1689 and 1690 and readout PW-3 statement which was taken at Jallad Khana.

After adjournment, proceedings continued

After the break Razzaq continued his submission again. He said, “I was at page 1695.” He then submitted, “While framing the charge, the prosecution said, he was a student and residing in the Shahidullah Hall. Subsequently, they attached to him some incidents in Mirpur.” Sinha J. pointed out the requirement for plea of alibi. 

CJ argued, “in the pre-1971, it was the practice that student who used to involve politics of Chatra Shangha (student wing of Jamat-e-Islam) or Communist party, they used to stay some other place along with their allotted room in the resident hall for some reasons. You see he was involved with election campaign in Mirpur.”

Razzaq replied, “My lord, at that time 90% of the population in Mirpur were non-bangalee and only 10% were Bangalee. My submission is those incidents were conducted by non-Bangalees just because of their political involvements.”

Sinha J. argued, “Mr Razzaq can you please see page 575 (PW-4 Kazi Rosy’s cross examination), last paragraph, second sentence, where while cross examining her you asked PW-4, ‘there was one Quder Molla in Mirpur in 1971 who was Bihari and known as ‘Butcher Molla’.’ You made that submission. What is your comment about that?” Razzaq replied, “This is not my submission now.”

CJ then asked Razzaq, “Is presence important to make accused petitioner liable?” 

Razzaq replied, “No, my lord.” CJ suggested, “In that case, this submission will not sustain.” 

Razzaq replied, “My submission is- they have accepted that Abdul Quader Molla was a resident of Shahidullah Hall and they have now come to tie him up with some incident happening in Mirpur. My submission is completely different.” 

Razzaq then referred to I.O. cross examination at page 1690 where he deposed, “He was a student of Shahidullah Hall at Dhaka University.” He then moved to page 626 of part 2, 3rd line, where I.O. deposed, “We been to Duyari Para in Mirpur to investigate whether Abdul Quader Molla used to live there. And then come to our office.” Razzaq argued, “There is nothing after that and then at last of the same page it has just been mentioned, ‘we talked to 3 families in relation to that’.”

Razzaq then moved to page 254 of the last volume and then to page 192 of the judgement and started to read the Evaluation of witness by the Tribunal at 12:37 pm. 

As soon as he started, Wahab Miah J. and Shamsuddin Chowdhury J. suggested, “it goes against your current argument cause the trial judges mentioned you argued that she (PW-3) was not the daughter of the victim.” 

Razzaq agreed with the judges. CJ asked him to proceed and Razzaq then continued reading the Evaluation and Findings of the tribunal.

Wahab Miah J. then argued, “Lets think we have accepted all of your other arguments but what about this finding of the trial court in this charge. The PW deposed her father requested to the person, ‘Brother Quader, please leave me.’ Please kindly see, she is a live witness; not a hearsay. She lost her sense at a certain stage.” Sinha added, “and she was raped! Which will prevail- her deposition to I.O.? or her statement before the tribunal?” I

In response to that, Razzaq argued, “Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply here.” Wahab Miah further assisted, “You have submitted that the PW went to her in-laws place 3 days before the incident. Where is your suggestion that she was not in the place of occurrence? It is not here. Please see page 562 7th line from bottom.” Razzaq quoted the PW, “I have not seen who killed my father but Quader Molla grabbed the collar of his shirt.”

CJ then said, “So you have finished your submission with charge no. 6?” 

Razzaq replied, “No my lord, tomorrow I shall show some law points and the judicial notices of facts taken by the tribunal and for the interest of justice, if your lordships wish, then you can examine in a witness.” (There is no such precedent that such an appeal court has ever examined a witness in a criminal matter)

No comments:

Post a Comment