Pakistan Observer
29th September 1966
Around the Courts
Mujib’s case arguments
Lawyer says, they are false and procured witnesses
(By Our Court Correspondent)
Following is the defence arguments on the facts of the case against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman for alleged prejudicial speech on September 29, 1964. Part of the arguments was published in this paper on Wednesday. The argument in the case which started and ended on Tuesday was heard by Mr. M. A. Malik, the trying Magistrate, inside the Dacca Central Jail.
Defence lawyer Mr. Zahiruddin, arguing on the facts of the case, directed tirades against the prosecution witnesses. He sought to prove them all, save Mr. Afsaruddin Ahmad, as liers and procured witnesses.
Arguing on the evidence of the first prosecution witness, Mr. Mohammad Israil o/c, Ramna Thana and the complainant in the case, the defence lawyer said that he got it from this witness through cross-examination that the latter had seen the transcription, on which the accused was charged, on September 21 or 22. On the other hand the accused delivered the alleged prejudicial speech on September 29. Did not this show up a malicious plan to prosecute the accused long before the alleged cause of action, lawyer questioned.
| Pointing to the witness’s deposition that he did neither meet any witnesses at the place of occurrence nor had anybody to complain of a prejudicial speech but that he became the complainant “at the instance of my superior officer”, lawyer said the case was a sheer conspiracy against the accused.
“The o/c is the complainant in the case and the same person deposes, ‘I have no personal opinion about the speech’, what a fun the prosecution seeks to do with a political leader in a court of law”, the lawyer ruefully added.
Then the lawyer argued on the deposition of Mr. Mozammel Huq, a short-hand Government reporter on whose coverage the accused was prosecuted. Citing his evidence, “I did not produce the transcription before any Magistrate” for attestation no one can transcribe, the transcription (exhibit 6) “is neither in my hand nor I did the transcription nor can I say on what date it was transcribed and by whom”, the lawyer claimed that the accused was prosecuted on a false and forged transcription, case of theft on the part of this witness. Hence his evidence was worth for nothing, he submitted.
Then lawyer turned to the evidence of Mr. Md. Ismail of 60/2, Bonogram, Dacca a witness whom the prosecution claimed to have been from among the audience of the meeting concerned.
Lawyer submitted this witness deposed “I am a businessman. I heard the speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman” that enraged his mind and that of many others in the meeting.
Don’t understand chaste Bengali
But curiously enough, lawyer submitted, the speech enraging his minds was delivered in chaste Bengali but in answer to a question, in Bengali, he replied, “I do not understand this chaste Bengali.” Questioned if he knew how to read and write Bengali he replied in the negative and added that be knew how to read Urdu.
The colour of this Bengali knowing man, who understand Mr. Mujib’s Bengali speech and got enraged, lawyer said, would be clear from his this deposition: “I come from Calcutta. Before that I was at Manikganj. I cannot name the village of Manikganj from where I came. I do not come from Manikganj but my ancestors came from Manikganj. My father was born in Calcutta”.
And further this man who gave out to be a businessman “pay no income tax, no sales tax. I have no municipal licence or any trade licence, no bank account in my name.”
Such a tout and out and out tutored man has been brought before the Court of law as a witness. God save this country! the lawyer added and exclaimed.
Then came under fire of arguments the prosecution’s next witness from among the audience Sayed Hayat Aziz of 88/1 Tanti Bazar, Dacca, who did not “remember the year of my arrival in Pakistan. I come from Reraoli Sharif which is near Lucknow.”
He deposed “I deal in catechu. On the day of a Hartal in September last (1964) a meeting was held at the Outer Stadium which I attended.”
He remembered cited in Bengali some portion of the speech. The degree of oppression on the students exceeded the degree of oppression once done by Namrud and feraun. …….. Hearing this speech he felt, members of the public got excited, And at this he felt sorry.”
But this very person, lawyer contended, did not understand his question of cross-examinatiion in Bengali, “did you ever go to a laboratory? Did you ever hear the name of some Weavers Association?” The latter question was posed, lawyer said because the witness resided at Tanti Bazar.
Then the lawyer made an attack on the witness’s memory. The witness could reproduce from his memory the speech of the accused after about one year but he could not remember lawyer submitted “the date of that meeting”. And he heard, lawyer added, “a few lines of the speech made by our President over the Radio Pakistan last night but I cannot remember them now.” So this witness, lawyer vehemently said, was worth not a pie. The prosecution simply procured and purchased them.
Referring next to the evidence of Mr. Afsaruddin Ahmad, the Magistrate who attended the meeting for attesting the reports of the Government reportes: “No transcription was placed before me for my attentaion”, the lawyer bitterly accused the prosecution of bringing the case against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on false and baseless documents.
Turning finally to the deposition of Mr. Sekander Ali the Investigation Office of the case, the lawyer wanted to know why the case was started about two months after the date of occurrence and why the investigating Officer could not say to whom the reporters submitted their long hand notes.
Quoting the witness’s deposition: “I did not ascertain if those two witnesses (Syed Hayat Aziz and Ismail) could read or write Bengali. May be there were several thousand people present in the meeting who knew reading and writing of Bengali.” The lawyer questioned why the prosecution made a mockery of justice in a Court of law.
In fine, the lawyer appealed to the court to rise in coming to a decision about the present case up its usual deal to criminal justice, because it was a case involving people’s basic rights to criticise a government in this democratic world.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু তৃতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক॥ দ্বিতীয় পর্ব