Pakistan Observer
25th October 1966
AROUNDF THE COURTS
Witnesses tutored to speak Bengali
Sheikh Mujib acquitted
(By or court Correspondent)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the President of East Pakistan Awami League was acquitted on Monday of the charge of delivering a prejudicial speech, on September 29, 1964 at Paltan Maidan, Dacca.
The judgment was pronounced by Mr. M. A. Malik Magistrate, inside Dacca Central jail where the trial was held.
Quoting excerpts from the alleged prejudicial speech, the prosecution charged Sheikh Mujibur Rahman under Section 7(3) of the East Public Safety Ordinance No. LXXVIII of 1958 which called for punishment of the accused with imprisonment for a term extending to five years, or with fine, or with both.
The defence case was that the speech was made in protest against the repression of students. It contended that the speech was not prejudicial. It questioned the prosecution if it could deny the contents of the speech.
Long hand note
The Magistrate, however, found no legs for the prosecution case to stand on, because the long-hand notes of the speech of the accused presumably attested by a Magistrate were not available in the evidence on record.
His judgment said a handful of non-Bengali witnesses were brought in to whom Bengali is Greek.’ The prosecution witness Md. Ismail was admittedly a non-Bengali person. He had no elementary knowledge of Bengali language and he was obviously tutored to speak some Bengali words alleged to have been uttered by the accused in the alleged meeting.
“Although this witness was tutored, he failed to state the alleged speech as cited by the prosecution. The selection of this witness also most amusing when thousands of Bengali people attended the meeting the judgment added.
A liar
Continuing on this point the judgment said, the witness Sayed Hayat Aziz was yet another non-Bengali person. He appeared to have been tutored to state some portion of the alleged speech in Bengali but he proved himself to be a liar when he could not understand any question put by the Defence sawyer in Bengali language. The judgment concluded it was rather difficult to understand why the prosecution rather deliberately pushed aside thousands of Bengali-knowing people attending the meeting to prove the alleged occurrence.
The judgment also found the oral evidence of the first prosecution witness and complainant in the case and the FIR lodged by him as quite contradictory. The witness did not appear to have seized the alleged transcription of the short-hand notes of the Government reporters covering the alleged prejudicial speech but he deposed to have examined the transcription. So the Magistrate failed to understand how the transcription went to his hand unless it was seized by him so he concludes the prosecution case ‘missed strong footing.”
FIR
In his deposition the shorthand reporter, the judgment said, gave a story of the speech which was different from the one of the FIR, although the complainant to have prepared the FIR by going through the transcription made by this short-hand reporter. Further, the examination-in-chief of this witness (the reporter) was quite contradictory to his own cross-examination, the judgment added. It was further admitted by this witness that his transcription was not authenticated by any responsible officer. As a result the transcription lost its evidentiary value.
Coming to the evidence of the investigation officer in the case, the judgment stated that he had examined the witness after long three months on the date of occurrence. He admitted in crossexamination that two police officers were deputed to take longhand notes of the speech but he had not seen any such notes of the speech during his investigation. He appeared to have been satisfied after examination of two non-Bengali witnesses to a serious case like this.
Attestation
Prosecution witness Mr. Afsar-ud-Din Ahmad, a Magistrate, the judgment went on did not remember any portion of the speech nor did he attest the so-called transcription. Undoubtedly he was an educated Bengali person. When a man like him could not remember any portion of the alleged speech which was quite probable after a long lapse of time, the judgment questioned how the other witnesses admittedly non-Berngalees could remember such a long story as alleged.
A host of Lawyers defended the accused. They are, among others, Messrs Abdus Salam Khan, Zahiruddin, Abdul Husain, M. A. Rob, Khondkar Mahbub Husain, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mirza Shohrab Bukht and Mr. Abdul Khaleq, DSP. conducted the prosecution case.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু তৃতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক॥ দ্বিতীয় পর্ব