Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued to conduct the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 10 June, 2013. In the Mobarak Hossain case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Khadem Hossain Khan, Prosecution witness 4. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 11 June, 2013. 

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Cross Examination of PW 41

Regarding Charge no 3
The Defense asked the witness about the seizure list (Exhibit 1). On this seizure list there was a writing, which was not exhibited by Prosecution, entitled ‘Amar Baba O Kisu Sriti,’ which was written by Sree Profullo Ranjon Shingh about his father Sree Nuton Chandra Singh, the victim in Charge 3. In this writing, Sree Profullo Ranjon Shingh recorded that on the evening of 13 April 1971, he received the news that the Pakistani occupying force, with the help of traitors and Razakars, had killed his father. He further wrote that initially, he could not believe this, since Fazlul Qader Chowdhury (the father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury) was his father’s friend. Sree Profullo Ranjon Shingh wrote that he heard the whole story of the killing of his father from the Late Chairman Amanot Khan and many more when he returned after 9 months of the Liberation War. The Defense claimed that Sree Profullo Ranjon Shingh in his writing did not mention the name of the Accused. The witness replied that the writing does not directly mention but does implicate the Accused.

Regarding Charge no 8
The Defense asked the witness about the seizure list (Exhibit 2) and claimed that the newspapers mentioned in this seizure list did not clearly indicate that Umme Habiba (PW 17) was inside the motor vehicle from which the army personnel seized the victims, Sheikh Mozaffar Ahmed and Sheikh Alamgir, and took them to the nearby army camp. The witness replied that the newspaper did not describe in detail the persons who were present inside the motor vehicle. The Defense asked the witness about the alleged place of incident by showing a map. The Defense claimed that there was a bazaar, a bank, shops and a bus stand at the place of the alleged incident, and that the witness in bad faith did not interview any of the persons who were present there at that time. The witness replied that this was not true. The Defense asked the witness whether Umme Habiba (PW 17) mentioned that she got married again to Sheikh Morshed Anwar (PW 20). The witness replied that she did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he interviewed the son of Umme Habiba. The witness replied that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he interviewed the relatives of Umme Habiba or her family members located where the Prosecution claimed Umme Habiba was before and after the alleged incident. The witness replied that he did not. The Defense claimed that during the investigation the witness did not interview these persons, and that this omission was in bad faith. The witness replied that this was not true. The Defense claimed that no case was filed regarding the killings of Sheikh Mozaffar Ahmed and Sheikh Alamgir. The witness admitted that.

Regarding Previous Cases Filed against the Accused
The Defense asked the witness about Exhibit 32, a certified copy of a GR Register of a case filed by Shatto Ranjon Sing about the killing of his father Sree Nuton Chandra Singh (charge no 3), in which 11 individuals were accused. The case was sent to the High Court. Defense asked the witness about the updates on the case. The witness replied that he was unable to find the documents relating to the case after it was transferred to the High Court. The Defense asked the witness whether he wrote down this update in his case diary. The witness replied that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he investigated the other individuals accused in this case. The witness replied that he did not.

The Defense asked the witness about Exhibit-32/1, certified copy of a GR Register, filed by Sree Manik Dhar, the victim in charge 10, who is now deceased. The witness testified that all of the individuals accused in this case were discharged, and there were two other accused in addition to Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. The Defense asked whether the witness investigated against the other two accused individuals for possibly having committed crimes against humanity. The witness replied that he did not.

The Defense asked the witness about Exhibit-32/2, certified copy of a GR Register, filed by Moddasel Ahmed Chowdhury, Gohira Union Secretary of the Awami League, under the Penal Code and Section 11 of the Collaborators Act. The Defense claimed that in addition to Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, the accused in that case included AKM Fazlul Qader Chowdhury (father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury), AKM Fozlus Sobhan Chowdhury, Hiru and Manik (brothers of the present Awami League MP ABM Fazle Korim Chowdhury. The witness admitted this.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
Examination-in-Chief of PW 4
Khadem Hossain Khan, Prosecution witness 4, testified that after 26 March 1971, his shop was looted. He testified that in middle of May he went to India, and returned to Mojlishpur, Brahmanbaria after 21 days of training. He was deployed to provide information to the freedom fighters about the movements of the Razakars and the Pakistani Army and to help the freedom fighters reach a safe place after crossing into the territory of Bangladesh from India.

Khadem testified that on 24 or 25 November, he was informed that Principal Ismail Hossen was sick. Khadem testified that the next day, he went to the building of the Radio and Television institute located at Brahmabaria Station and found Ismail Hossenin better condition. Khadem testified that when he came out from the building, he was captured by 5-6 armed Razakars led by Mobarak Hossain. Khadem testified that the Razakars tied his hands and took him to an Army security camp located in a building of Brahmanbaria College, and handed over him to the Pakistani army. Khadem testified that Mobarak also told the Pakistan Army in Urdu that Khadem was a dangerous man, a freedom fighter and technician, who had set several mines and destroyed several bridges. Khadem testified that Mobark was the commander of the Sohilpur Union Council Razakar camp.

Khadem testified that Pakistani Army tortured him by hanging him upside-down and lashing him with an electronic cable, which made him unconscious and caused severe wounds. He testified that when he regained consciousness, he found himself in the Old Jail of Brahmanbaria. He testified that he saw many more torture victims in jail custody. After 4 or 5 days, he saw Siraz and Malek from his village, and they told him that they were also caught under the leadership of Mobarak, from their own house, and brought there after being tortured. He testified that just before two weeks of Liberation War, the Pakistani Army killed the detained Siraj after taking him beside the Kurulia canal by truck. He testified that detainees of that jail were regularly taken and killed in this same way.. He further testified that after the country was liberated, freedom fighters and Awami League members rescued the remaining detainees by breaking the lock of the jail. He identified Mobarak in the dock and testified that at that time he had no beard. The witness acknowledged that he gave an interview to the Investigation Officer.