& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Bangabandhu Murder Case

Trial court’s verdict faulty, unacceptable: Defence
A defence lawyer yesterday called the verdict of Banga-bandhu Murder Case an “omnibus judgement" and Insisted that it is faulty and unacceptable, reports UNB.
Continuing his argument before the High Court for the second day. Advocate Abdur Raz-zaque Khan said: The trial court in an omnibus way decided the accused guilty. It didn’t consider separate witnesses’ accounts about involvement of the accused.
“It's an omnibus Judgement, that's why faulty and unacceptable." he submitted.
He also argued that the Judgement didn't have any narration or decision on confirmation of conspiracy and par-tfeipation of the accused in the plot.
“Even there was no witness account in support of the conspiracy in the Judgement, except that of prof Khorshed Alam." said the counsel for condemned-accused Lt Col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan.
Razzaque Khan resumed his argument that he started Tues-
day when the court of Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin and Justice ABM Khairul Haque began its proceedings yesterday morning for the 15th day.
He particularly referred to the statements of four prosecution witnesses and termed those as hearsay and inadmissible and those were recorded with defence objections. Statements like "I came to know. I understood” etc suggest that those were hearsay, he said adding more such examples will be submitted.
The defence lawyer cited sections 157 and 8 of the Evidence Act when the court asked why the statements of a witness who was present in Bangabhaban and himself learnt from the accused about the occurrence should not be considered.
He also focused on how the trial court avoided cross-examinations of the witnesses and asked why the confessional statements of the accused in this case should not be considered as substantive evidence.
Defending Col Shahriar. the lawyer told the HC that there
was room for something suspicious as four accused made confessional statements to magistrates alter being held on police remand lor a long time.
"This type of confessional statement should not be taken into consideration," he said referring to some examples in other cases of how the accused were compelled to make confessional statements under illegal pressure.
The court wanted lo know from the prosecution how long Shahriar was on remand. "Twelve days," Informed the prosecution.
“The accused were sent not only on remand by judicial order. there is evidence that they were kept under CID custody also by the order of the government." the lawyer said.
The evidence, he said, shows Shahriar was kept under CID custody at the order of the government and Faruq by Home Ministry's order.
It was unprecedented. Criminal Procedure Code doesn't allow sending an accused to police custody at the order of the government." the defence lawyer said.
He said the trial judge didn’t take into consideration the statements of the two magistrates. Afzalur Rahman and Habibur Rahman, who had recorded the confessional statements of the accused.
.As the court asked the prosecution whether in the verdict there is any narration about statements of the two magistrates. special prosecutor Anisul Haque replied in the negative.
Razzaque Khan told the HC that cross-examination of none of the 61 witnesses was mentioned in the judgement of the Dhaka District and Sessions Judge s Court.
"The learned Judge wrote his verdict only considering the depositions of the witnesses. He didn't take cross-examinations into his consideration." he submitted His submission was followed by a court query to the prosecution whether it is correct Prosecution replied in the affirmative.
The defence lawyer referred to a verdict of the Appellate Division put in 38 DLR (Dhaka Law Report) where the Supreme Court observed that the trial court would consider the cross-examinations.
"Both the deposition in chief and cross-examinations will have to be considered." Razzaque Khan said citing another observation of the Federal Court put In 5 DLR
.Among the prosecution lawvers present during his ir-fument were advocate Anisul laque. Sahara Khatun deputy attorney general Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik, advocate Mosharraf Hossain Kajal and Nurul Islam Sujon.
The defence lawyer will continue his argument today when the court also holds hearing on a petition filed for outside-prison treatment of Major (retd' Bazlul Huda.
The condemned-accused in the petition also desired to get some dally necessaries like nail cutter and meet his counsels Mahbubur Rahman MP and others.