& 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

Prejudiced ruling on hearsay account

Defence argues in Bangabandhu Murder Case
The defence yesterday argued that the trial court verdict in the Bangabandhu Murder Case was prejudiced as the trial was based on hearsay witness accounts. reports UNB.
Advocate Abdur Razzaque Khan, counsel for L( Col Iretd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, one of the 15 army officers sentenced to death, drew attention of the Higji Court about 19 such witnesses
"Recording hearsay statements like — T came to know', '1 understood'. I learnt' — is not acceptable as per law. But the learned Judge of the trial court took Into cognizance those to hold the accused guilty and gave verdict quoting the unacceptable witness accounts." he said.
Advocate Khan mentioned 15 more hearsay witnesses when the division bench of the High Court after disposing of a petition for condemned Major (retd) Bazlul Huda asked for re-
sinning his arguments.
The lawyer during his sec-ond day's argument Wednesday had drew attention of the HC bench about hearsay statements of four such witnesses, recorded by Dhaka District and Sessions Judge Court with objection from the defence.
The bench hearing death reference of the historic case and convicts' appeals comprises Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin and Justice ABM Khairul Haque.
Yesterday was 16th day of proceedings In the High Court
Making argument for Col Shahriar. the defence lawyer said the judge of the trial court had some cross-examinations under Section 342 of the CrPC of which a minimum part Is not acceptable.
Citing an observation of the Supreme Court, put in 42 DLR (Dhaka Law Report), he said the answers coming hi form of
cross-examinations can't be recorded as witness accounts as per Section 3 of the Evidence Act
He quoted PW-57 Daud All. an official of the Foreign Ministry. that Shahriar was appointed to Bangabhaban on August 15. 1975. During his cross-examinations. he Informed that they had papers of the Military Secretary at the Army Headquarters In this respect.
Referring to charges framed against the accused under sections 302/120(B) and 302/34, Razzaque Khan told the court that places had been described where the accused assembled to plot the killing of Banga-bandhu.
'But there is not a single witness against Col Shahriar that he was In the conspiracy attempting to kill or In the assemblies with selfsame intent.' he submitted for court's consideration.
He further argued that the statements of the witnesses, quoted by the trial court under Section 342, don't indicate that the charges under sections 302/34 and 302/120(B) were proved against the accused.
"No witness did say that Shahriar took part in the killing.’ Razzaque Khan said quoting PW-1 Mohitul Islam, also plaintiff of the case, as saying he came to know that Shahriar was involved in the murder.
In this respect, he cited statements of at least 10 witnesses who told the trial court that they saw Shahriar in Balurghat radio station, near the residence of Semiabat, cantonment and Bangabhaban. but not in or around the place of occurrence.
Razzaque Khan is likely to complete his argument when the court resumes on Sunday after the weekend.