Testimony of Mokbul Hossain

My name is Mokbul Hossain. I am 85 years old. My father’s name is XXX and mother is Late XXX. Address: XXX Pirganj, District: Rangpur. Shaheed Abu Sayeed is my son. He used to study at Begum Rokeya University. He was a meritorious student. In class five and eight he got a Talentpool scholarship. He also got a Golden GPA 5 in SSC. After SSC, he got admitted to Rangpur Government College and later he got admitted to the English department of Rangpur Rokeya University. He used to pay for his studies by giving tuition.

On July 16, 2024, I came home from the field around 12 o’clock (pm) and heard that everyone was crying. Later I came to know that Abu Sayeed was shot and died. After hearing this news, it was as if the sky fell on my head. I sent my two sons and two sons-in-law to get the news of the body. At first, they went to Begum Rokeya University and did not find the body. They heard that he was taken to the medical college. When I went there, I found out that he was taken for post-mortem. At first, the police did not allow us to see the body. Later, under the pressure of my son-in-law and son, they allowed us to see the body. Abu Sayeed’s body was brought home at around 3:30 pm.

The people from the administration came at night and told us to bury the body. I said that is not possible now. In the morning of the next day at 9 am, after two funeral prayers, he was buried in the family graveyard. While bathing Abu Sayeed’s body, I saw that blood was dripping from the back of his head and there was a bullet mark on his chest and blood was dripping from his entire chest.

Later, I came to know that Amir Ali and Sujan Chandra Roy of the police shot him. A few days before this incident, Chhatra League leader Pomel Barua slapped my son by grabbing his collar. I want justice for those who martyred my son and the involved Chhatra League, Jubo League. I had hoped that my son would get a job. Now that he is dead, I will not be able to see that. So I hope that before my death, I will be able to see justice for my son’s murder. The investigating officer interrogated me.

This is my testimony.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Md. Aminul Gani Titu (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam)

Defense: Mr Mokbul, for the murder of Abu Sayeed, his elder brother, Ramzanul Islam, filed a case, case number CR 105 of 2024… [Couldn’t finish the question].

Objection by the Prosecution: The person who filed the complaint is not the one being questioned. You cannot ask him if he knows about the case. The questioning must remain within the scope of the examination-in-chief and cannot go beyond it.

Defense’s Position: Under Rule 53(2):  it is stated that cross-examination will be strictly limited to matters raised in the examination-in-chief. However, questions may be asked to test the credibility of the evidence given by the witness or to identify contradictions.

Tribunal’s Response:Are you aware that the Appellate Division, in a ruling, has stated that questions can only be asked to determine credibility? Questions cannot go beyond that. The court rejected the use of cross-examination to find contradictions.

Defense’s Response: Much obliged Your Lordship.

Defense:  continued with the question.

Objection raised by the Prosecution again: The question being asked is in no way relevant to the subject matter. So, how are you trying to test credibility on such a matter?

Defense’s Response: Your Lordship, firstly, the way the prosecution used leading questions to extract testimony from the witness is in no way acceptable. However, we did not raise any objection because we know that a father has lost his son; he is a grieving man who has come from a village. So, of course, Prosecutor Mizanur Islam helped him. That’s okay, we understand. But if we are not given the opportunity to ask questions, then how will the case be built?

Tribunal’s Response: What aspect of the son are you trying to disprove the credibility of? What has he said that is so unbelievable? Are you trying to say that the son did not attend university? Is it something like that?

Defense’s Response: Your Lordship, I must be allowed to ask the question. Afterwards, I will be able to use the answer to that question, which is why I want to ask these questions. If you say so, then I will disclose my strategy, my planning, on how I want to utilize these answers.

Tribunal’s Response: So, are you trying to build your case on the witness’s testimony? Do you have no original argument of your own?

Defense’s Response: No, Your Lordship, it is not like that. Please allow me to ask the question. Afterwards, if it seems that the question should not have been asked, then I will not ask any more questions.

(The Tribunal responded affirmatively.)

Defense: Can you tell us, Mr. Maqbul, who filed the case before the tribunal?

Objection by the Prosecution: Rule 18(1) states the Chief Prosecutor files the petition to the Tribunal, Your Lordship. Therefore, this question is not relevant in any way.

Tribunal’s Response: The International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973 has confined the periphery for you. You must keep that in mind. You have to remain strictly restricted to the subject matter of the examination-in-chief. You said that the prosecution asked leading questions, and then you yourself said it was acceptable. But if you were so understanding, you would have declined in the first place, because it is usually declined in such cases. Others have also done so previously. But you did not.

Defense’s Response: Alright, I am declining.

Tribunal’s Response: If you had declined earlier, this time would not have been wasted needlessly. To err is human, and we are also learning. We are also studying new jurisprudence.

Defense’s Response: Yes, Your Lordship, I am also a learner. I am also trying to understand. I am declining. 

Cross-Examination has been declined by the State recruited Defense Counsel Sujat Mia (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 1-Prof. Hasibur Rahman, 11-Hafizur Rahman, 12-Sarwar Hossain, 14 and 30)

Cross-Examination has been declined by the Defense Counsel Md. Shahidul Islam (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 15-Amin Hossain, 25, 26, 27 and 28)

Cross-Examination has been declined by the Defense Counsel (In favour of Present Accused no. 13-Rafiul Hasan Rasel)

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Mamun-Ur-Rashid (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 16-Pomel Barua, 17-22, 24): 

Abu Sayeed is my son. In total, I have six sons and three daughters, and Abu Sayeed was my sixth son. As I am illiterate, I do not know when he was admitted to the university. Pomel Borua grabbed my son by the collar and slapped him, but I cannot say on which date he did it. My son participated in this Quota movement to fight for his rights.

It is not true that I, being emotional over my son’s death, gave false testimony to implicate Pomel Borua. It is also not true that the testimony given against Pomel Borua is false, fabricated, and concocted.

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Barrister Israt Jahan Oni (In favour of the Absconding Accused no. 2-Md. Monir, 3-9):

It is not true that I gave false testimony stating that while I was washing Abu Sayeed’s body, I saw blood flowing from his chest and the back of his head, even though no blood was actually flowing.

Q:: Abu Sayeed was shot at 2:17, and his body was washed the next day at 7:00 AM. Therefore, the blood should have dried up by then; it should not have been flowing.

Tribunal’s Objection: You cannot give reasoning or argument at this stage (Cross Examination).

Cross-Examination has been declined by the State recruited Defense Counsel Md. Salauddin (In favour of Present Accused no. 23 and 29)

Cross-Examination has been declined by the Defense Counsel Sheikh Mustabhi Hassan (In favour of Present Accused no. 13-Rafiul Hasan Rasel)

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy)

Counsel: Which members of the administration came to you at night and said that your son’s body must be buried immediately?

Witness-1: The police from the station, the AC Land, and the UNO.

Counsel: Did they all say this at the same time, or did different people come at different times to say it?

Witness-1: They all came together and spoke about burying the body.

Counsel: What time at night did they come and say this?

Witness-1: They said it after three o’clock.

Counsel: What is the distance from the crop field to your house?

Witness-1: By road, the distance from the field to my house is about one kilometer.

Counsel: Who informed you that your son had been shot?

Witness-1: No one informed me; I heard the news when I came home.

Counsel: What is the distance from your house to where the incident occurred?

Witness-1: 30 to 32 kilometers away.

Counsel: Have you ever seen a bullet?

Witness-1: No, I have never seen a bullet because I don’t use a gun.

Counsel: Were the wounds on his chest and stomach small?

Witness-1: Due to the blood, I could not see whether the wounds on his chest and stomach were small.

Counsel: From whom did you hear about the disputed shooting incident?

Witness-1: I saw it in a video.

Counsel: Did someone show you the video?

Witness-1: I saw it on a TV channel.

Counsel: Can you name the channel?

Witness-1: I cannot name the channel.

Counsel: In that video, can you say how many police officers or civilians you saw?

Witness-1: I don’t know how many police or civilians were there, but in total, there were about 15 to 20 people.

Counsel: Did you understand the names of the people you saw in the video?

Witness-1: No.

Counsel: From how many places on the back of his head did you see blood flowing?

Witness-1: One.

Counsel: In the video you watched, did you see any scene of someone being beaten with a stick (lathi)?

Witness-1: No, I did not.

It is not true that the wound which caused Abu Sayeed’s death was not inflicted by Amir Hossain and Shujon Chandra Roy.