1

IN THE DRUTO BICHAR TRIBUNAL NO 01, DHAKA

Druto Bichar Tribunal Case Number 02 of 2020

Arising out of: Sessions Case No. 314 of 2020

General Register (GR) Case No. 565 of 2019 (Chokbazar)

Chokbazar police station case Number 14 (10) 2019

Under sections:

302, 109, 114 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860

In the matter of:

Written arguments under
section 265J of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 on
behalf of accused Morshed
Amartya Islam.

AND

In the matter of

1. Morshed Amartya Islam (18

years and 11 month) son of Md.

Rabiul Islam and mother of

Morsheda Jahan, Village-

Kazigram, Thana-Gomostapur,

District-
 2

Chapainababgonj and choto

bongram, Hazrapukr, Dabtala

police station-Chandrima,

RMP-Rajshahi At present

BUET student, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, 17th

Batch (FIR Accused No. 17)

…Accused petitioner

(In judicial custody)

VERSUS

The State represented by the

Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka

…Prosecution

Main allegation as per the First Information

(FI) dated 07.10.2019:

That the prosecution case in brief that one informant Md.

Barkat Ullah lodged the first information in writing

alleging inter alia that on 06.10.2029 at 8.05 pm his son

named Abrar Fahad Rabbi was called from his room

 3

number 1011 by the accused and taking him in the room

number 2011, they caused grievous hurts on the body of

the deceased and thereafter he has been died. Then the

informant lodged the instant case i.e. the first

information against first information report based

accused with Chokbazar Police Station which has been

recorded in BF Form No. 27 under regulation 243 of

police regulations, 1943 as Chokbazar Police Station case

being No.14, dated 07.10.2019 under sections 302 and

34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and in the language of the

informant mentioned in the first information is as

follows:

msev` cvBqv Avwg ZvrÿwbK fv‡e XvKvq Avwmqv

ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv n‡ji KZ„©c‡ÿi mv‡_, ey‡q‡Ui

KwZcq Qv·`i mv‡_ Av‡jvPbv K‡i I wfwWI dz‡UR

†`‡L Rvwb‡Z cvwi †h, D³ QvÎvev‡mi QvÎ

Avmvgx ... ,17| †gvt †gv‡k©` (20) wcZv- AÁvZ,

mvs- AÁvZ, _vbv +†Rjv- AÁvZ, G/wc- ey‡qU †k‡i

evsjv nj (17 e¨vP)(GgB) wefvM, _vbv PKevRvi g‡Wj,

XvKv … Bs 06/10/2019 wLªt ZvwiL 20.05

NwUKvq Avgvi †Q‡j‡K ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv n‡ji iæg

 4

bs 1011 nB‡Z nZ¨vi D‡Ï‡k¨ †W‡K wb‡q Bs

07/10/2019 ZvwiL ivÎ Abygvb 20.30 NwUKv ch©šÍ

D³ n‡ji iæg bs-2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi wb‡q c~e©

cwiKwíZ fv‡e wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú Ges jvwV-‡mvUv w`‡q

kix‡ii wewfbœ RvqMvq cÖPÛ gviai K‡i hvnvi d‡j

NUbv¯’‡jB Avgvi †Q‡j gviv hvq |

Main allegation as per the Police Report

(Charge Sheet) dated 13.11.2019 is different

from the framed charges as in the police report

11 accused are recommended or mentioned for

direct commiting the offence of causing hurts

i.e. 302 of the Penal Code but rest are

recommended for abetment.

According to the Charge framed on 15.09.2020 by

this Druto Bichar Tribunal No. 1, Dhaka, the following

charges have been framed against the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam along with others.

Avwg †gvt Avey Rvdi †gvt Kvgiæ¾vgvb, wePviK †Rjv I

`vqiv RR), `ªyZ wePvi UªvBeybvj bs-1, XvKv GZØviv

 5

Awfhy³ (1)... (2)... (3)... (4)... (5)... (6)... 7)... 8)... 9)... 10)...

11)... 12)... 13)... 14)... 15)... 16)... 17)... 18)... 19)... 20)...

21)... 22) ‡gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg 23)...

24).....25)... Awfhy³MY‡K wbb¥wjwLZiæ‡c Awfhy³

Kwi‡ZwQ †h,

Avcbviv mKj Awfhy³MY c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e ci¯úi

†hvMmvR‡k I mnvqZvq Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ

04/10/2019 wLªóvã Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h

†Kvb mgq evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) Gi

†k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/2019

wLªóvã ZvwiL ivZ 10.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq ch©šÍ

GKB †M÷ nvD‡R Avcbviv `dvq `dvq wgwUs K‡ib †h

wfKwUg Aveivi dvnv` ivweŸ‡K gviai K‡i nZ¨vi Kivi

Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq

20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq

02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h †Kvb mgq XvKv gnvbMixi

PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvaxb ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK

nj iæg bs 2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg

ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi dvnv`

ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po,

_vài, jvw_, wKj, Nywl †g‡i, KzbB w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU

 6

ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôzi fv‡e wcwU‡q

40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib|

cieZx©‡Z Avmvgx †gvkviid mKvj, †gvt †g‡n`x nvmvb

iweb, GGmGg bvRgym mv`vZ, †gv: gyRvwn`yi ingvb,

†gv: †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb, †gv: AwbK miKvi, †gv:

gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi, L›`Kvi Zvev°viæj Bmjvg Zvbfxi MY

†MÖdZvi n‡q Zviv wb‡R‡`i‡K NUbvi mv‡_ RwoZ K‡i

Av`vj‡Z †`vl ¯^xKv‡ivw³g~jK Revbew›` cÖ`vb K‡i I AÎ

gvgjvi Ab¨vb¨ mKj Avmvgxiv NUbvi mv‡_ m¤ú„³ Av‡Q

g‡g© Revbe›`x cÖ`vb K‡ib|

Ges Bnvi Øviv 1860 mv‡ji `Ûwewai 302/109/114/34 avivi

Aax‡b kvw¯Í‡hvM¨ I `Ûbxq Aciva Kwiqv‡Qb Ges Zvnv

AÎ `ªæZ wePvi UªvBeybv‡j wePvh©|

Thugh this is not a case of section 302 of the Penal

code, 1860 but having no intention a case of 304

second part of the said Code, 1860 but the charge

framed against the instant accused petitioner is as

follows:

“Avc নী Awfhy³ ‡gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg

(অন্যান্যদের সাথে) c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k I

 7

mnvqZvq Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ 04/10/2019 wLªóvã

Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq evsjv‡`k

cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK

n‡ji K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05.10.2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL ivZ 10.00

Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq ch©šÍ GKB †M÷ nvD‡R

Avcbviv `dvq `dvq wgwUs K‡ib †h wfKwUg Aveivi dvnv`

ivweŸ‡K gviai K‡i nZ¨vi Kivi Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q weMZ

06.10.2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z

07.10.2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h

†Kvb mgq XvKv gnvbMixi PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvaxb

ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK nj iæg bs 2011 Ges 2005

Gi wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv AvevwmK

n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi dvnv` ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ

n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po, _vài, jvw_, wKj, Nywl †g‡i, KzbB

w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I

wbôzi fv‡e wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi i³v³ RLgmn

nZ¨v K‡ib|

The abovementioned charges framed against the

instant accused petitioner provides the following

parts:
 8

(i) c~e©cwiKwíZfv‡e...

(ii) ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k...

(iii) ci¯úi mnvqZvq...

(iv) Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q...

(v) weMZ 04/10/2019 wLªóvã Zvwi‡L

mܨv 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq

evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU)

Gi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji K¨vw›U‡b

`dvq `dvq wgwUs করা …

(vi) 05/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL ivZ 10.00

Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kvb mgq ch©šÍ GKB

†M÷ nvD‡R Avcbviv `dvq `dvq wgwUs

করা …

(vii) weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL

mgq 20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/2019

wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨

†h †Kvb mgq XvKv gnvbMixi PKevRvi

g‡Wj _vbvaxb ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv

AvevwmK nj iæg bs 2011 Ges 2005 Gi

 9

wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg ey‡q‡Ui

†k‡ievsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi

dvnv` ivweŸi cÖwZ Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ

n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po, _vài, jvw_, wKj,

Nywl †g‡i, KzbB w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU

ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôzi

fv‡e wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi

i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib|

This is now necessary to analyze the depositions of

prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence coming

through the cross examination for the kind

consideration of this Druto Bichar Tribunal No. 1,

Dhaka.

ARGUMENTS FOR ACCUSED NUMBER

MORSHED AMARTYA ISLAM :

( Arguments for the instant

accused petitioner who has

been charged under sections

 10

302, 109, 324, 114 and 34 of

the Penal Code, 1860)

Here the following main points is to be considered in

respect of the charges of sections 302, 109, 324, 114

and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 against this

accused petitioner

Whether any produced

prosecution witness has adduced

any piece of evidence in respect of

the charges of sections 302, 109,

324, 114 and 34 of the Penal

Code, 1860 against the instant

accused petitioner

The answer of the question is

absolutely ‘No’ and reasons for

‘no’ are given below:

 11

Among 60 (Sixty) police reported (charge sheet)

prosecution witnesses 46(Fifty-six) witnesses have

been produced before the trial Court who have

adduced their evidence and now it is necessary to see

and examine whether any witness has adduced any

evidence against this accused petitioner. On the

contrary, in order to disprove the charges made

against him, though the accused petitioner has not

adduced his evidence under section 340(3) of the code

of criminal procedure, 1898 but his submitted

statement in writing under section 342 of the said

Code has been established.

Defence case is in short from the evidence and trend

of the cross examination along with the submitted

statement under section 342 of the said Code, 1898 is

that the instant accused petitioner was not present in

the six place of occurrences and he was in Rajshahi

and out of the said six places of occurrence and

accordingly he is absolutely an innocent.

(I) Analysis of evidence of PW-1

Md. Borkat ullah in respect

 12

of the charges made against

the aforesaid accused

petitioner:

PW-1 is the father of the deceased Abrar Fahad and is the

informant of this case. He in his examination in chief

stated that- Avwg †jvKgvid‡Z Rvwb‡Z cvwi †k‡i evsjv

AvevwmK n‡ji KwZcq QvÎ Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e

gviai Kwiqv ¸iæZi RLg KiZ: nZ¨v Kwiqv‡Q| D³ msev` cvBqv

Avwg ZvrÿwbKfv‡e XvKvq Avwmqv ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv

AvevwmK n‡ji KZ„©c‡ÿi mv‡_ I KwZcq QvÎ I wkÿK‡`i mv‡_

Av‡jvPbv Kwiqv Ges wmwm K¨v‡givq aviYK„Z wfwWI

dz‡UR †`‡L Rvwb‡Z cvwi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ

Avmvgx ... †gvt †gv‡k©` 17 Zg e¨vP Gg.B wefvM...

MY mn AÁvZbvgv Av‡ivI K‡qKRb evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj

wek¦we`¨vj‡qi QvÎ MY Bs 06/10/2019 Bs ivZ Abygvb 8:05

wgwb‡U Avgvi †Q‡j Aveivi dvnv` iveŸx‡K ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv

AvevwmK n‡j iæg bs 1011 nB‡Z nZ¨vi D‡Ï‡k¨ †W‡K wb‡q

07/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L ivZ Abygvb 02.30 wgwbU ch©šÍ †k‡i

evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji iæg bs 2011 Ges iæg bs 2005 Gi wfZi

wb‡q c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú, jvwV ‡mvUv Ges

 13

w¯‹wcs †ivc A_©¨vr iwk w`‡q kix‡ii wewfbœ RvqMvq cÖPÛ

gviai K‡i| hvi d‡j NUbv¯’‡j Avgvi †Q‡j gviv hvq|

In the cross-examination pw-1 stated that- Avcwb AÎ gvgjvi

ZwK©Z NUbvi ïiæ †_‡K Aveivi dvnv‡`i g„Zz †NvlYv ch©šÍ

mg‡q msNwUZ ZwK©Z ‡Kvb NUbvB wbR †Pv‡L †`‡Lb bvB

Bnv mZ¨ wK bv? nu¨v| AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z NUbvKvjxb mg‡q

Avcwb ZwK©Z NUbvi ¯’‡j Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jb bv Bnv mZ¨ wK

bv? nu¨v wQjvg bv|

In the cross examination he also admitted that he came to

know about the incident from Rafi, Sayem, Rayhan, Yamin,

Mohaimin, Rashik Siddiki and others. The relevant part of

the cross examination is as follows-

Avcwb ey‡q‡Ui †h K‡qKRb Qv‡Îi bvg ej‡Z cvi‡eb e‡jb

†mB KwZcq Qv‡Îi msL¨v GRvnv‡i D‡jøwLZ Qv‡Îi msL¨vi

†P‡q Kg wK bv?- Kg| †h K‡qKR‡bi bvg ej‡Z cvi‡eb e‡jb-

Zv‡`i bvg h_vµ‡g ivwd, mv‡qg, ivqnvb, Bqvwgb,

†gvnvBwgb, ivwkK wmwÏKx GB KqRb I Ab¨vb¨|

Among the aforementioned 06 names only Rafi and Yamin

came to the witness box as PW-25 & PW-26. They were not

also the eye witnesses of the case. PW-25 in his

 14

examination-in-chief stated that- …IB mgq c‡i mvBdzj Avgv‡K

wb‡q iæ‡gi evB‡i Kwo‡Wv‡i wb‡q Av‡m I Avgv‡K Rvbvq †h,

Aveivi‡K Avgv‡`i n‡ji Avgv‡`i e¨v‡Pi K‡qKRb †Q‡j 2011 bs iæ‡g

wb‡q wM‡q‡Q| Avwg bvg Rvb‡Z PvB‡j mvBdzj Avgv‡K Zvwbg,

†Rwg mn Av‡iv K‡qKRb Qv‡Îi bvg Rvbvq| ...mvBdzj cybivq ivZ

AvbygvwbK 2.30 †_‡K 2: 45 wgwb‡Ui g‡a¨ Avgvi A_©¨vr 1011 bs

iæ‡g Av‡m| mvBdzj Avgv‡`i iæ‡g Aveiv‡ii kvU© †bIqvi Rb¨ G‡mwQj

I Aveiv‡ii kvU© wb‡q †m †ewi‡q hvq Ges mvBdzj Av‡iv Rvbvq †h,

Aveivi‡K nvmcvZv‡j †bIqv n‡e|

It is clear from the aforesaid depositions that PW-25 did

not know what had happened in Room No. 1011 & 2011 in

respect of the alleged incident. He just came in knowing

everything from third Party.

On the other hand, First three lines of cross examination of

PW-26 are- Avcwb ZwK©Z NUbvi w`b KLb †_‡K ivZ 03.00 Uv

ch©šÍ co‡Z wQ‡jb?- ivZ 08:00 Uv †_‡K| D³ ivZ 03:00 Uvi পূর্বের

NUbv Kvi wbKU †_‡K ï‡bwQ Zrg‡g© GBgû‡Z© ¯§iY bvB|

So PW-1 is not only a hearsay witness but also hearsay of

hearsay witness and heard the alleged incident including

from anonymous (অজ্ঞাতনামা) people as he mentioned in his

examination in chief that- Avwg †jvKgvid‡Z Rvwb‡Z cvwi †k‡i

 15

evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji KwZcq QvÎ Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e

gviai Kwiqv ¸iæZi RLg KiZ: nZ¨v Kwiqv‡Q| He was not present in

the place of occurrence at the time of incident. His evidence

deserves no evidentiary value in the light of section 60 of

the Evidence Act.

In Kutubuddin Ahmed Siddiky v. E. Pak Industrial

Development Corporation, 27 DLR (HCD) 433 Para-10 it

has been held that:

The provision of Section 60 is founded upon a cardinal

principle of law of evidence, namely, that the evidence

must always be direct and hearsay evidence must be

excluded. (Underline is given for emphasis)

Again in the case of Hossain vs 56 DLR (AD) 213 it has

held that:

It is a settled principle of law that hearsay

evidence cannot be the basis of conviction.

In the case of Nibash Chandra v. Depali Roy, 52 DLR

(HCD) 87 Para-7, it has been held that –

When the other witnesses stated that they heard the

occurrence from the complainant but the complainant did

 16

not herself state in her deposition or in the petition of

complaint that she told those witnesses, the evidence of the

witnesses are hearsay and have no value.

Here although PW-1 has stated that he heard from PW-25

and PW-26 along with Sayem, Rayhan, Mohaimin,

Rashik Siddiki and etc. but the said PWs 25 and 26 are

not eye witnesses. Moreover, they have not stated in their

examination in chief that they told the incident to the

informant of this case who has adduced his evidence as

PW-1 and ergo the evidence of PW-1 is nothing but only the

hearsay of the hearsay evidence which has no

evidentiary value. Other 4 (four) persons have not been

produced as prosecution witnesses. In support of this

contention of hearsay of the hearsay evidence there is a

case reference i.e. Kirtan Prasad vs State of Madhya

Pradesh 2005 Cri LJ 69

“Section 60 of Evidence Act requires that the oral evidence

must, in all cases whatsoever, be direct. Where the

testimony of the witness is entirely hearsay and on some

matters hearsay of hearsay, it cannot be admitted in

evidence. Where a witness gives evidence that he received

information from other person and that person does not

 17

say about it, such evidence would be inadmissible being

hearsay evidence.”

In the instant case, PW-25 and 26 are not eye witnesses

and they heard the incidents from others and PW-1 heard

the incident from the said hearsay witnesses PW-25 and

PW-26 and thus in view of the law reported in the case

aforesaid case of Kirtan Prasad vs State of Madhya

Pradesh 2005 Cri LJ 69, the evidence of PW-1 is not only a

hearsay evidence but also a hearsay of the hearsay evidence

which is definitely inadmissible and has no value at all.

In the case of Mir Hossain @ Forkan Meah v. State, 12 BLT

(AD) 59 Para-6, it has been declared by the Hon’ble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

that-

“The informant did not see the occurrence and he heard it

from others. His evidence shall be treated as hearsay

evidence and cannot be relied upon unless his statement is

corroborated by those from whom he heard.”

Again in the case of Amjad Ali v. State, 72 DLR (AD) 113

Para-29, it has been declared by the Hon’ble Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh that-

 18

“Hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence and if he

has got any information from person or officer, he must

mention his name and the prosecution is required to

examine that person to corroborate the statement, otherwise

the statement cannot be admissible into evidence.”

In the instant case, the charges framed against the instant

accused petitioner has not been stated either in the

examination in chief by pw-25 and 26 which absolutely

make it clear that the statement between the PW-1 and

them (PW-25 and 26) are not corroborated. That is, PW-1

has made his examination in chief in making similarity

with the charges or the information written in the first

information but the said PW-25 and 26 from whom he

heard have not stated the same kind of fact or statement

agains the instant accused petitioner and hence their

statements are also uncorroborated and having the

disparity, the evidence of PW-1 is definitely hearsay

evidence and has no evidentiary value at all. Moreover, PW-

1 has stated that he heard from PW-25 and PW-26 along

with Sayem, Rayhan, Mohaimin, Rashik Siddiki and etc.

but the said PWs 25 and 26 are not eye witnesses and the

rest four witnesses (Sayem, Rayhan, Mohaimin and

Rashik Siddiki) have not been produced although as per

 19

the mandatory law reported in 72 DLR (AD) 113 Para-29 it

was required for the prosection to to examine the said four

persons to corroborate the statement of PW-1 and for the

failure of the same, the statement of PW-1 cannot be

admissible into evidence.

For the following admission (Avcwb AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z

NUbvi ïiæ †_‡K Aveivi dvnv‡`i g„Zz †NvlYv ch©šÍ mg‡q

msNwUZ ZwK©Z ‡Kvb NUbvB wbR †Pv‡L †`‡Lb bvB Bnv

mZ¨ wK bv? nu¨v| AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z NUbvKvjxb mg‡q

Avcwb ZwK©Z NUbvi ¯’‡j Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jb bv Bnv mZ¨ wK

bv? nu¨v wQjvg bv|) of the informant cum PW-1, it is

absolutely crystal clear that he was not present in the place

of occurrence and has not seen any facts starting from 8.05

am to 2.30 pm period of time and hence his evidence is

completely a hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in

evidence according to the principle of evidence Act of 1872.

Moreover, he has admitted that there is no presence of the

instant accused petitioner in the video in question of

calling and taking the deceased from his room and in his

own language the said admitted facts is as follows: “…

Avcbvi †Q‡j‡K AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z wfwWI‡Z †W‡K wb‡q

hvIqvi `„k¨ gvÎ 11 †m‡K‡Ûi Bnv ej‡Z cvi‡eb wKbv?- bv,

 20

Avwg ej‡Z cvi‡ev bv|... ZwK©Z †mB 11 †m‡K‡Ûi `„‡k¨

Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjv‡gi Dcw¯’wZ Av‡Q wKbv?-

bvB ...”

This is also notable here that though the PW-1 has stated

that Avwg †jvKgvidZ Rvb‡Z cvwi †k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji

KwZcq QvÎ Avgvi †Q‡j‡K c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e gviai Kwiqv

¸iæZi RLg KiZ: nZ¨v Kwiqv‡Q| but he has admitted that AÎ

gvgjvi ZwK©Z cÖvq 6 N›Uvi ïiæi mg‡qi c~‡e©i †Kv‡bv

NUbv msNwUZ NUbvi c~‡e©i †Kvb wKQzB Avcbvi Rvbv

_vKvi K_v bv|- n¨v| This indicates that the PW-1 had no

knowledge about not only the charges framed against the

instant accused petitioner but also about the pre-planning

in question of the alleged allegation.

In fact, the evidence of PW-1 is nothing i.e. no evidence

in respect of the charged made against the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

(II)Analysis of evidence of PW-2 Md.

Delowar Hosen, Sub-inspector of

police in respect of the charges

 21

made against the aforesaid

accused petitioner:

The PW-2, Md. Delwar Hosen, Sub-inspector of police

has made his following deposition during the

examination in chief

g„Z Aveivi dvnv` (21) †K AÁvZbvg e¨w³iv AÁvZ Kvi‡Y

Zvnv‡K gviai Kwiqv ¸iæZi hLg Ae¯’vq A‰PZb Kwiqv †k‡i

evsjv nj ey‡qU XvKvi wØZxq Zjv †_‡K bxP Zjv hvevi

wmwoi gvS eivei †d‡j †i‡L hvq| cieZx© myiZnv‡j D‡jøwLZ

Wvt †gvnv¤§` gvmyK Gjvnx msev` cvBqv D³ ¯’v‡b Avwmqv

g„Z Ae¯’vq †`wL‡Z cvq| Z_vwcI g„‡Zi g„Zz¨i mwVK KviY

wbY©‡qi Rb¨ gqbv Z`‡šÍi wbwg‡Ë g„Z †`nwU mswkøó

KvMRcÎ mn msMxq Ks/13588 †gvt kwn`yj Bmjvg Gi gva¨‡g

miKvix †hv‡M wefvMxq cÖavb d‡ibwmK †gwWwmb

wefvM XvKv †gwW‡Kj K‡jR nvmcvZvj †cÖiY K‡ib| GB

†mB myiZnvj wi‡cvU© cÖ`k©bx-2, Zv‡Z Avgvi ¯^vÿi

cÖ`k©bx-2/1|

So from the above deposition it is found that the PW-2 has

not seen any facts of this case and even he has stated

either wrong statements or false statements as though he

 22

has stated that “…gqbv Z`‡šÍi wbwg‡Ë g„Z †`nwU mswkøó

KvMRcÎ mn msMxq Ks/13588 †gvt kwn`yj Bmjvg Gi gva¨‡g

miKvix †hv‡M wefvMxq cÖavb d‡ibwmK †gwWwmb

wefvM XvKv †gwW‡Kj K‡jR nvmcvZvj †cÖiY K‡ib| but he

has admitted that AÎ gvgjvi wWwm÷ Gi `„k¨Z g„Z¨yi KviY

wbY©‡qi †ÿ‡Î Avcbvi †Kvb cÖKvi m‡›`n wQj wKbv?- nu¨v|

†mB m‡›`‡ni wfwˇZ `„k¨Z wWwm‡÷i g„Zy¨i KviY wbY©‡qi

wbwg‡Ë XvKv †Rjvi mswkøó wmwfj mvR©‡bi wbKU

wWwm÷ Gi †WW ewW †cÖiY K‡iwQ‡jb wKbv?- nu¨v| XvKv

†Rjvi wmwfj mvR©‡bi wbKU AÎ gvgjvi wWwm÷ Gi ewW

†cÖiY Kivi K_v ZwK©Z myiZnvj cÖwZ‡e`‡b Av‡Q wKbv?-

nu¨v Av‡Q|

Here the PW-2 has made false statements as he has stated

in his examination in chief that the dead body of the

deceased of this case has been sent to the Head of the

Forensic Department of Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka but

he in his cross examination has given false statement i.e.

the dead body of the deceased of this case has been sent to

the Civil Surgeon of Dhaka District and even the inquest

report itself does not contain the fact of sending dead body

of the deceased to the Civil Surgeon of Dhaka District.

 23

The PW-2 has made the false statement as the address of

the office of Civil Surgeon of Dhaka District is located at

Azimpur Road, Dhaka but the address of the Head of the

Forensic Department of Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka is

located at near to Zahir Raihan Road, Dhaka and hence it

is crystal clear that the PW-2 has made false statements in

respect of sending the dead body of the deceased for post

mortem report. In fact, the deposition of the PW-2 is no

evidence against the instant accused petitioner and at the

same time, the evidence coming through the cross

examination on behalf of the instant accused petitioner is

false evidence which creates nothing.

This is notable that the PW-2 has made the inquest report

in violating section 174 of the Cod of Criminal Procedure,

1898 i.e. without the special empowerment of the

government.

Here the PW-2 has not adduced an iota of evidence in

respect of the charges made against the instant accused

petitioner and hence the evidence of the PW-2 is nothing

i.e. no evidence.
 24

In fact, the evidence of PW-2 is nothing i.e. no evidence

in respect of the charged made against the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

(III) Analysis of evidence of PW-3 Md.

Sohrab Hosen, Inspector of police in

respect of the charges made against the

aforesaid accused petitioner:

The PW-3 Md. Sohrab Hosen, Inspector of police of

police has made his following deposition during the

examination in chief that MZ 07/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avwg

Awdmvi-Bb-PvR© wnmv‡e PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvq Kg©iZ wQjvg| D³

Zvwi‡L ivZ 20:30 wgwb‡Ui mgq AÎ gvgjvi ev`x †gvt eiKZ Djøvn Gi

Kw¤úDUvi K‡¤úvRK…Z GRvnvi _vbvq cÖvß nBqv Avwg Awdmvi

Bb PvR© wnmv‡e PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvi gvgjv bs 14, ZvwiL

07/10/2019 Bs, aviv 302/34 `Ûwewa iæRy Kwi but the said PW-3

in his cross examination has admitted that

AÎ gvgjvi msev` `vZv KZ©K cÖ`Ë ZwK©Z cÖv_wgK Z_¨ Øviv wewc

dig 27 c~i‡Yi mg‡q wK Bnv Rvb‡Zb †h, Avcbvi c~iYK…Z AÎ wewc

dig cÖvq 10 eQi Av‡M evwZjK…Z?- Rvwbbv| cÖvq cÖvq 10 eQi

Av‡M evwZjK…Z wewc dig 27 G AÎ gvgjvi ZwK©Z gvgjvi cÖv_wgK

 25

Z_¨ wjwce× Kivi welqwU B”QvK…Z bv Awb”QvK…Z?-

Awb”QvK…Z...

AÎ gvgjvi cÖv_wgK Z_¨ wewc dig 27 c~i‡Yi c‡i AÎ gvgjvi Z`šÍKvix

Kg©KZ©v wbav©iY Kivi welqwU wcweAvB iæjm 2016 Abymv‡i

Avcbvi GLwZqvi ewnf©~Z wKbv?-GUv Avgvi Rvbv bvB| wcweAvB

iæjm Abymv‡i XvKv †Rjv Ges XvKv †g‡UªvcwjUb Gwiqvi

`vwq‡Z¡ wb‡qvwRZ mswkøó wcweAvB Kg©KZ©v KZ©„K Z`šÍKvix

Kg©KZ©v wbav©iY Kiv DwPr wQj Bnv mwVK wKbv?- Bnv Avgvi

Rvbv bvB| AvBb bv Rvbvi AhynvZ bq GUv Rv‡bb wK?- GUv Avgvi

Rvbv †bB| wewc dig c~iY Kivi †gvU KZwU wb‡`©kbv Av‡Q?- Avgvi

Rvbv †bB| wewc dig 27 c~i‡Yi wbqg Abymv‡i Avmvgx †gv‡k©`

AgZ©¨ Bmjv‡gi weiæ‡× msev` `vZv KZ©„K cÖ`Ë PvR© mywbw`©ó

fv‡e hvPvB bv K‡i A`ÿZvi mwnZ Zvnvi bvg wewc di‡gi bvg GRvnvi

di‡gi 2 bs Kjv‡g wjwce× K‡i‡Qb- mZ¨ bq| Avcwb AÎ gvgjvq cywjk

†i¸‡jkbm 243 I 244 Abymv‡i Avmvgx †gvi‡k` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg‡K

K¨vRyqvwj 2 bs Kjv‡g †hfv‡e AšÍf©y³ K‡i‡Qb Bnv Avcbvi B”QvK…

Z bv Awb”QvK…Z f~j ?- mZ¨ bq|“

From plain reading of the deposition and the cross

examination based evidence of this prosecution witness

(PW-3), it is crystal clear that PW-3 was not an eye witness

and he was not present at the time of committing alleged

offence. He being the officer in charge of Chak Bazar Police

Station, DMP, Dhaka aftter getting the written first

 26

information has recorded in BP form 27 under regulations

243 and 244 of police regulations, 1943 and hence there is

not a single word of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

Moreover, he has admitted in his cross examination that

“wcweAvB iæjm Abymv‡i XvKv †Rjv Ges XvKv †g‡UªvcwjUb

Gwiqvi `vwq‡Z¡ wb‡qvwRZ mswkøó wcweAvB Kg©KZ©v KZ©„K

Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v wbav©iY Kiv DwPr wQj Bnv mwVK wKbv?-

Bnv Avgvi Rvbv bvB|

That is, he was not aware of the necessity of determining

and conducting the investigation of this case by the

authority of Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) according

to the schedule of the PBI Rules 2016. The case of 302 of

the penal code including this case was to be and is to be

and shall have to be sent to the PBI authority for

investigation till the existence of the said Rules, 2016.”

He was also not aware of the substituted BP form 27 for

which he has used the earlier BP form 27 which is

according the gazette notification dated 13 March 2008

illegal or repealed as the said Form has been already

 27

substituted and he has also admitted that this mistake was

his unintentional mistake.

In fact, the evidence of PW-3 is nothing i.e. no evidence

in respect of the charged made against the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

(IV)Analysis of evidence of PW-4 Md.

Zahid Hossain Jony in respect of

the charges made against the

aforesaid accused petitioner:

PW-4 Md. Zahid Hossain Jony is a canteen boy of

Sher-E-Bangla Hall, BUET. His examination-in-

chief is as follows:

NUbvi ZvwiL 07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL| Avwg weMZ

07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL Zvwi‡L evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj

wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) †k‡ievsjv n‡ji K¨vw›Ub eq wnmv‡e

KvR KiZvg| MZ 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL w`evMZ ivZ 01.00

Uvi mgq K¨vw›Ub eÜ nevi ci ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡ji mKvj

 28

fvB Avgv‡K WvwKqv 2011 bs iæ‡g wbqv hvq| Avwg iæ‡gi

wfZi wM‡q †`L‡Z cvB Zvnvi iæ‡gi †g‡S I evwj‡ki Dci

ewg| mKvj fvB Avgv‡K H ewg cwi¯‹vi Kivi Rb¨ e‡j Ges

Avgv‡K UvKv w`‡q Avwm‡e ewjqv Rvbvq| Avwg evwj‡ki

Kfvi I †g‡S †_‡K ewg cwi¯‹vi Kwi| ZLb mKvj fvB Qvov

Ab¨ †jvK wQjbv| Avwg cwi¯‹vi Kwiqv K¨vw›U‡b Avwmqv

nvZ-gyL mvevb w`qv cwi¯‹vi Kwiqv NygvBqv cwi| ivÎ

Abygvb 03:30 NwUKvi mgq Nyg †_‡K DwVqv †k‡i evsjv

n‡ji wb‡P Pv`i w`qv XvKv GKR‡bi jvk †`wL‡Z cvB| c‡i

Rvwb‡Z cvwi 1011 bs iæ‡gi Aveivi gviv †M‡Q|...

From the plain reading of the aforesaid statement of PW-4

it is transparent that he was on 6/10/2019 till 1 p.m. in

the canteen that means he did not know what happened

inside of the room no: 2011. Though he has cleaned some

unclean object but he has not seen any fact in question

committed inside of the room no: 2011. After cleaning the

unclean object he slipped and at 3:30 am on 7/10/2019 he

saw the dead body covered by sheet (চাদর). This indicates

that PW-4 has not seen any alleged allegation.

In fact, the evidence of PW-5 is nothing i.e. no evidence

in respect of the charged made against the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

 29

(V) Analysis of evidence of PW-5 Dr.

Masuk Elahi in respect of the

charges made against the aforesaid

accused petitioner:

Prosecution Witness (PW) No. 5 Dr. Masuk Elahi has

stated in his examination in chief that “NUbvi ZvwiL

07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL| Avwg MZ Bs 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL mKvj

Abygvb 08:00 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/19 ZvwiL mKvj 08:00 Uv ch©šÍ

ey‡qU †gwW‡Kj †m›Uv‡i Bgv‡R©w݇Z Kg©iZ wQjvg| 07/10/19 Bs

ZvwiL ivZ 02:47 NwUKvq ey‡qU †k‡i evsjv nj †_‡K Bgv‡R©wÝ b¤^i

6666 n‡Z GKRb QvÎ †dvb w`‡q e‡j †h, GKRb QvÎ LyeB Amy¯’| Zvi

k¦vm Kó n‡”Q| Zviv Avgv‡K `ªæZ †k‡i evsjv n‡j Avm‡Z e‡j| Avwg

mv‡_ mv‡_ G¤^y‡jÝ WªvBfvi Kvgvj‡K mv‡_ K‡i 10 wgwbU Gi g‡a¨

ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv n‡j †cŠ‡Q hvB| n‡j †cŠQvi mv‡_ mv‡_ n‡ji

mvg‡b Abygvb 10/15 Rb ey‡q‡Ui QvÎiv G¤^y‡jÝ wN‡i a‡i| Avgv‡K

Aw·‡Rb wm‡jÛvi, †÷ªPvi Avb‡Z e‡j| Avwg Zv‡`i‡K ewj †h, Avwg

Av‡M iæwM †`Le Zvici hv cÖ‡qvRb Zv Ki‡ev| QvÎiv Avgv‡K DËi

eø‡Ki wmwoi w`‡K wb‡q hvq| wmwo‡Z GKZjv I †`vZjvi gvSvgvwS

j¨vwÛs ¯’v‡b wmwo‡Z †Zvl‡Ki Dci †kvqv‡bv Ae¯’vq Aveivi dvnv`‡K

†`L‡Z cvb| Zvi co‡b GKwU dzj nvZv kvU© I UªvDRvi wQj| gv_v
 30

cwð‡g cv c~e© w`‡K wQj| †ZvlK I UªvDRvi cÖmv‡e †fRv wQj | cÖ_g

`k©‡Y Zv‡K Avgvi g„Z e‡j g‡b nq| Zrÿbvr Avwg Zv‡K cixÿv Kwiqv

pulse not palpable, BP- Not recordable , Respiration absent, Heart-

sound not audible, Pupil- Diated fixed & non-reacting to light dvBwÛs

(jÿY) ¸wj cvB| RxweZ _vKvi †Kvb jÿY wQjbv Zvi g‡a¨ GUv Avwg

†`L‡Z cvB| ZLb 15/20 Rb QvÎ wQj †mLv‡b| G‡Z Avwg Aveivi

dvnv`‡K g„Z e‡j †NvlYv Kwi|

He during his cross examination has admitted that “How

much total duration was required for checking 5 vitals

including 5 minute interval periods – 7 to 8 minutes.”

After analyzing the deposition and the cross examination

based evidence of this PW- 5 it is very much clear that he

went to the place where the dead body of the deceased was

kept covered by sheet (চাদর) at 2:50 a.m. to 2:55 a.m. at

night on 7/10/2019 as he has admitted in his cross

examination that “আপনি অত্র মামলার ডিসিষ্টকে রোগী হিসাবে দেখার জন্য তর্কি ত ঘটনা স্থলে

কতটার সময় উপস্থিত হয়েছিলেন? অনুমান রাত ২:৫০ থেকে ২:৫৫ মিনিট।“

He also admitted in his examination in chief that “প্রথম দর্শনে

তাকে আমার মৃত বলে মনে হয়।

 31

This means that he did not see any fact of the alleged

allegation. He went to the place of keeping the dead body

after the Death of deceased as at the first sight Abrar

Fahad was seemed to be death. In addition to this, he

informed over mobile phone to the Provost Dr. Zafor Iqbal

khan at 3:00 a.m. In fact, PW-5 went to the place of

keeping the dead body after the end of the alleged

occurrence and the death of the deceased and accordingly

he was not an eye witness and also it was his beyond

knowledge as to the said allegation.

In fact, the evidence of PW-5 is nothing i.e. no evidence

in respect of the charged made against the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

(VI)Analysis of evidence of PW-6 Nivana

Khayer Jessy, PW-7 Sadbir Yasir

Ahsan Chowdhury, PW-8 Md.

Sorafuzzaman Ansary, PW-9 Md.

Tofazzal Hossain, PW-10 Atikul

Islam in respect of the charges

 32

made against the aforesaid accused

petitioner:

That the PW-6 Nivana Khayer Jessy, PW-7 Sadbir Yasir

Ahsan Chowdhury, PW-8 Md. Sorafuzzaman Ansary, PW-9

Md. Tofazzal Hossain, PW-10 Atikul Islam all being

Metropolitan Magistrates, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Dhaka are confessions recording magistrates of the co-

accused of the instant accused petitioner and accordingly

they were not present in the Place of Occurrence (PO) and

they are not eye witnesses. They have recorded the

confessions-in-question of 08 (eight) accused in violating

the some mandatory laws mentioned below regarding the

recording of the confessions-in-question.

They have broadly violated the law declared by the Hon’ble

Appellate Decision reported in 39 DLR (AD) 117 and

according to the said declared law of the Hon’ble Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, it is

mandatory for the confession recording magistrates to put

the following question at the first time:

“How long have you been with police?”

 33

But the said PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 have not

put the aforesaid mandatory question set by the Hon’ble

Appellate Decision of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

and by which the confessions of the said accused are

definitely violation of the said law. Although they have not

put and written the question “How long have you been

with police?” but at the time of cross examination,

they have given false statement of putting the said

question.

Moreover, the said PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10

have violated regulation 283 of police Regulations 1943 and

also Rules 78 and 79 of the Criminal Rules and Orders

2009.

Let us see how they have violated the aforementioned laws

in respect of recording the confessions-in-question of the

co-accused.

Regulation 283 of Police Regulations 1943 provides that

“283. (a) (i) When an accused or suspected person

volunteers a confession it should be recorded in detail by a

police officer who, if it appears to be true, shall take

immediate steps for its verification. Such verification

 34

should include the tracing and examination of witnesses

named or indicated in the confession and the search for, or

the recovery of, stolen property or other exhibits material to

the investigation. The officer recording the confession shall

further arrange for the confessing person to be sent to a

Magistrate in order that the confession may be judicially

recorded.

(ii) Anything which savours of oppression or trickery in

obtaining a confession must be avoided. The aim of a police

officer should be to obtain circumstantial and oral evidence

so convincing that the accused person cannot escape. If he

succeeds in obtaining such evidence, the confession will

often follow and will materially strengthen the case, but to

seek to obtain the confession first and the corroborative

evidence afterwards is to reverse the proper order of

proceedings. If, however, a confession is volunteered in an

inquiry, every effort must be made to ascertain if there is

evidence corroborative of any point in the confession which

can be verified. A statement purporting to be a confession

will often be made in order to mislead the inquiring officer,

and such statements are very rarely true in all particulars,

and also are frequently made in order to throw blame on

other persons, or with a view to deter from further inquiry.

 35

Also they are generally retracted in court, in which case, if

they stand alone and uncorroborated, they have little or no

probative value, There is thus every reason for testing so-

called confessions very carefully and not accepting them as

final and conclusive, and stopping the inquiry.

(b) (i) Every confession which a person in police custody

wishes to make should be recorded by the highest

Magistrate short of the District Magistrate who can be

reached in a reasonable time. Confessions can be recorded

only by Presidency Magistrates, Magistrates of the first

class and Magistrates of the second class specially

empowered by the Provincial Government.

(ii) Investigating police officers should not be allowed to be

present when a confession is recorded, the Magistrate

should satisfy himself in every reasonable way that the

confession is made voluntarily. It should be made clear to

the prisoner that the making of a statement or not is within

his discretion. Cognizance of complaints of ill-treatment by

the police should be promptly taken and any indications of

the use of improper pressure should be at once

investigated. Concessions should ordinarily be recorded in

open court and during court hours, provided that if the

 36

Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing

on the form of confession, that the recording of the

confession in open court would be liable to defeat the ends

of justice, the confession may be recorded elsewhere. The

immediate examination of an accused person directly the

police bring him into court should be deprecated, and,

when feasible, a few hours for reflection in circumstances

in which he cannot be influenced by the police should be

given him before his statement is recorded.

(c) After a confession, which relates to more than one case

and discloses the activities of a gang of criminals, has

been judicially recorded, it should be verified by a police

officer and ordinarily an Inspector should be deputed for

this purpose. Should any particulars not be capable of

verification without the presence of the confessing accused,

an application should with the approval of the

Superintendent, be made to the District Magistrate to

depute a subordinate Magistrate to verify them with his

assistance. When such an application is made, a copy of

the translation of the confession together with details of the

specific points that it has not been found possible to verify

in the absence of the accused must accompany the

application.
 37

(d) The verification should be made with a view to

discover evidence corroborative of the facts disclosed

in the confession and case diaries should be submitted

showing for each case all the evidence and intimation

available on the points mentioned below:

(i) Name, father‘s name, residence, age and personal

description of each member of the gang.

(ii) The route taken by the gang.

(iii) The chief incidents during the journey of the gang from

start to finish, i.e., meeting with any person, visits to shops

or houses for food, oil, light, axes, etc., the hiring of carts,

boats or carriages, buying tickets at railway stations,

crossing ferries, etc.

(iv) The arrival of the gang at the scene of occurrence and

the preliminary arrangements made, lighting torches,

cutting sticks, etc.

(v) The commission of the crime, rooms entered, doors

broken, persons tied up or assaulted, cries uttered, or

threats used, boxes taken away, chests broken open,

property taken, etc.

(vi) The division of stolen property.

 38

(vii) The breaking-up of the gang and the homeward route

taken, etc.

(e) … … … …

(f) … … … …

(g) … … … …

(h) … … … …”

From the plain reading of the aforesaid regulation read

with Rules 78 and 79 of the Criminal Rules and Orders,

2009, the recorded confessions-in-question and also the

evidence coming through the cross examination of the said

Magistrates, the confessions-in-question are seriously

doubtful, involuntary and unlawful for the following legal

points:

(I) The investigating officer of this case has not

recorded the confession in detail and no

immediate verification and no sort of verification

has been made by the said investigating officer.

This non-compliance or violation of this law has

been avoided by the confession recording

 39

Magistrates and by avoiding this they have also

violated the regulation 283(a) (ii) of police

regulations, 1983 for which the confessions-in-

question are seriously questionable, unlawful and

also not true as the detail record and its

verification by investigating officer generally is a

precondition for recording any confession

judicially.

(II) According to regulation 283 (d) (i) of the police

regulations, 1943 the verification should include

the Name, father‘s name, residence, age and

personal description of each member of the gang.

Among the total 25 accused, though the instant

accused petitioner has been recommended by the

investigating officer of this case as an accused on

the basis of in deed the existence of one word

“morshed” and the residence, age and personal

description of the said one word “morshed” has

not been clearly written either by the investigating

officer of this case or by the confessions recording

Magistrates concerned. Both are responsible here

as the investigating officer of this case was bound

 40

to comply with regulation 283 (d) (i) of the police

regulations, 1943 and the confessions recording

Magistrates concerned were also legally bound

under Rule 79(8) of the Criminal rules and

Orders, 2009 to question the accused whose

confessions are recorded by PW-06-PW-10 and

make it clear by knowing the Name, father‘s

name, residence, age and personal description of

each member of the gang as the word ‘gang’

typically means a group of people for which the

detail particulars of one word ‘morshed’ has not

been ascertained or determined by the

investigating officer and also by the Magistrates

concerned and without verification and knowing

the detail particulars of one word ‘morshed’ the

inclusion of the instant accused petitioner in the

police report (charge sheet) is also seriously

questionable and doubtful and in view of the

absence of verification and correct Name, father‘s

name, residence, age and personal description of

the instant accused petitioner the inclusion-in-

question of the instant accused petitioner in the

police report (charge sheet) is absolutely illegal.

 41

(III) According to Note of Rule 79(8) of the Criminal

Rules and Orders, 2009 what questions were put

to the confessing co-accused have not been

mentioned by the concerned confession recording

MagistrateS concerned and for this it, is not clear

actually whether any question was put, what

questions were put and whether the questions put

to the confessing co-accused were free from

anything in the nature of cross examination and

whether the Magistrates concerned used their

endeavor to record their statements in the fullest

detail and in the absence of these, the

confessions-in-question are seriously

questionable, doubtful and also illegal confession.

(IV) In accordance with Rule 79(7) of the Criminal

Rules and Orders, 2009, the confession recording

MagistrateS concerned were under the legal

responsibility to understand and realize the

reasons to believe that the confession giving

accused are speaking and are about to speak

 42

voluntarily and having no existence of any kind of

reasons, the said confessions-in-question of the

co-accused are involuntary, questionable,

doubtful and also illegal confession.

(V) The instructions mentioned in the confession

recording Form No. either (M) 84 or (M) 45 have

been violated and thus it has created the position

of the confessions-in-question very doubtful and

also illegal and as such the said confessions-in-

question is unlawful and seriously doubtful. But

the confessions in question have not been

recorded in Form No. ( M) 45 according to the

CrRO, 2009 but recorded in the previous Form

no. (M) 84 which should not be used now.

(VI) The confessions-in-question recording

Magistrates concerned have not read out the said

confessions after recording the same to the

confessions giving co-accused of this case and

having no intelligence in the said Form No. (M) 84

 43

and as such the said confessions-in-question are

unlawful and doubtful.

(VII) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates

concerned either have not put any questions or

have not recorded the said questions put to the

confessions-in-question giving co-accused which

are the clear violation of the instructions

mentioned in serial No. 7 of the Form No. (M) 84

itself and as such the said confessions-in-

question are unlawful, involuntary and doubtful.

(VIII) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates

concerned have not mentioned and written the

exact Bengali expressions of the questions

provided in serial No. 5 of the of the Form No. (M)

84 itself and as such the said confessions-in-

question are seriously unlawful and doubtful.

(IX) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates

concerned either have not examined the physical

conditions of the confessions-in-question giving

 44

co-accused and as such the said confessions-in-

question are unlawful and doubtful.

(X) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrates

concerned have not ascertained the first place of

observation and that of detention of the

confessions-in-question giving co-accused before

their arrest by the police officer concerned and as

such the said confessions-in-question are

unlawful and doubtful.

(XI) The confessions-in-question recording

Magistrates concerned as per serial No. 6(a) of the

Form No. (M) 84 have not mentioned whether they

had questioned the concerneds confession giving

co-accused for understading the reasons and for

observing the demeanour to believe that the

said co-accused were about to speak voluntarily

and as such the said confessions-in-question are

involuntary, unlawful and doubtful.

 45

(XII) The confessions-in-question recording Magistrate

were not read to the concerned confession giving

co-accused and there is no admission of the

confessions-in-question by the said co-accused

and as such the said confessions-in-question are

unlawful and doubtful.

So, the confessions-in-question of the aforesaid co-

accused are definitely doubtful to the extent of

voluntariness and truthfulness and accordingly the

said doubtful, unlawful, involuntary and untruthful

confessions-in-question without independent

corroboration cannot be used against the instant

accused petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-6 to PW-10 is nothing

i.e. no evidence in respect of the charged made

against the instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam.

VII. Analysis of evidence of PW-11

Md. Farid in respect of the charges

 46

made against the aforesaid accused

petitioner:

The PW-11 Md. Farid has made his following

deposition during the examination in chief

that Avwg ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv n‡ji †gm eq| MZ 06.10.19Bs

ivZ AvbygvwbK 10.30 NwUKv ch©šÍ †g‡mi wWDwU †k‡l

Avgv‡`i óvd iæ‡g Nywg‡q cwo| 07.10.19Bs ivZ Abygvb 02.15

wgwb‡U Aci †gmeq mvgQzj nK G‡m Avgv‡K Nyg nB‡Z

†W‡K †Zv‡j e‡j †h n‡j bvwK wkwei a‡i‡Q| welqwU cÖ‡fvó

m¨vi‡K Rvbv‡bvi Rb¨ cÖ_‡g †dvb Kwi| †gvevBj †dvb eÜ

†c‡q Avwg I Kv‡`i m¨vi Gi evmvq hvB| m¨vi mv‡_ mv‡_

mnKvix cÖ‡fvó Wv³vi‡K †dvb †`q| Gi Abygvb 1/2 N›Uv ci

m¨vi‡`i wb‡q †k‡ievsjv n‡j Avwm| ZLb †`L‡Z cvB 1011 bs

iæ‡gi QvÎ Aveivi dvnv` iveŸx Gi jvk Uwji Dci Pv`i w`‡q

XvKv Av‡Q|

After plain reading of the aforesaid examination in

chief of this PW-11, it is very much clear that PW-

11 has not seen any fact in respect of charge made

against the instant accused petitioner named

Morshed Anartya Islam.

 47

According to the evidence of PW-11, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner and hence this witness has not been

cross examined at all.

In fact, the evidence of PW- 11 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charged made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

VIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-12

Abul Kalam Azad in respect of the

charges made against the aforesaid

accused petitioner:

The PW-12 Abul Kalam Azad has made his

following deposition during the examination in

chief that Avwg ey‡qU †k‡ievsjv n‡ji wmwKDwiwU

Awdmvi | weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªt iv‡Z Avwg evmvq wQjvg|

weMZ 07/10/2019 wLªt ivZ Abygvb 3.30 NwUKvi mgq

ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡ji nj cÖ‡fvó W.Rvdi BKevj m¨vi

Avgv‡K ‡dvb w`‡q e‡jb †k‡i evsjv n‡j GKRb QvÎ gviv †M‡Q|

According to the evidence of PW-12, there is no an

 48

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

From this statement of this PW-12, it is crystal clear

that he was not an eye witness as he heard the

news of the death of the deceased at around 3:30

a.m. at night which means that his evidence is not

direct and is post occurrence facts which do not

directly creats any liability.

In fact, the evidence of PW-12 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charged made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

IX. Analysis of evidence of PW-13

Md. Motiur Rahman in respect of the

charges made against the aforesaid

accused petitioner:

The PW-13 Md. Motiur Rahman has made his

following deposition during the examination in

 49

chief that NUbvi ZvwiL 07/10/2019 Bs| Avwg eZ©gv‡b

evsjv‡`k cÖ‡KŠkj wek^we`¨vjq, †k‡ievsjv nj Gi wmwbqi

mycvifvBRvi wnmv‡e Kg©iZ AvwQ| weMZ 06/10/2019Bs

ivZ Abygvb 09.30 wgwb‡Ui w`‡K mnKvix cÖ‡fvó

W.Bd‡ZLvi Avng` Lvb I W.kvwnbyi Bmjvg m¨vi‡`i mv‡_

Awd‡mi KvRKg© †k‡l evmvq P‡j hvB| iv‡Z 12.00 wgwbU

bvMv` Avwg †gvevBj mvB‡j›U K‡i Nywg‡q cwo| ciw`b

07/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL mKvj AvbygvwbK 08.30 wgwb‡Ui

w`‡K Nyg †_‡K D‡V †gvevBj †dvb nv‡Z wb‡q 70/80wU

wgmW Kj †`wL †gvevBj †dv‡b| According to the

evidence of PW-13, there is no an iota of evidence

against the instant accused petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-13 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charged made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

X. Analysis of evidence of PW-14 ASI

Golam Mostofa in respect of the

charges made against the aforesaid

accused petitioner:
 50

The PW-14 ASI Golam Mostofa has made admitted

the following evidence during his cross

examination that

“আপনি তর্কি ত মামলার ঘটনার শুরু থেকে শেষ পর্যন্ত কোনো কিছুই নিজ
চোখে দেখেন নাই - সত্য।“

So there is no direct evidence and particularly no

utterance of the name of Morshed Amartya Islam.

This means that there is no evidence against

instant accused petitioner in respect of the charge

made against him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-13 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charged made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XI. Analysis of evidence of PW-15

Md. Rabiul Islam in respect of the

charges made against the aforesaid

accused petitioner:
 51

The PW-15 Md. Rabiul Islam has made his

following deposition during the examination in

chief that weMZ 08/10/2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avwg

wWwe `wÿY wefvM, jvjevM †Rvbvj wU‡g Kg©iZ wQjvg|

eZ©gv‡b Avwg UªvwdK †ZRMuvI wefvM wWGgwc‡Z

Kg©iZ AvwQ| NUbvi ZvwiL 08/10/2019 Bs | D³

08/10/2019Bs ZvwiL ivZ 21.55 wgwb‡U igbv _vbvaxb 36

wg›Uz †ivW wWwe `wÿY jvjevM †Rvbvj wU‡gi Awdm K‡ÿ

Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v †gvt Iqvwn`y¾vgvbv RãZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z

K‡ib| Avmvgx BmwZqvK Avn‡g` gybœv‡K †MÖdZvi Kivi ci

Avmvgxi e¨eüZ GKwU mv`v nvjKv †mvbvjx is Gi MI-5

†gvevBj †mU Rã K‡ib| Avwg mn G.Gm AvB BmivCj †kL D³

Rã ZvwjKvq ¯^vÿi K রি|...

This witness has been declined as he has deposed

no evidence, no statement and even no name of the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam

have been by this PW-15.

According to the evidence of PW-15, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-15 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

 52

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XII. Analysis of evidence of PW-16

SI Md. Ruhul Amin in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

The PW-16 SI Md. Ruhul Amin has made his

following deposition during the examination in

chief that Avwg weMZ 08810/19 Bs Zvwi‡L wWwe

`wÿY wefvM, jvjevM †Rvbvj wU‡g Kg©iZ wQjvg| NUbvi

ZvwiL 08/10/2019 Bs I mgq ivZ 21:45 wgwbU| Rã ZvwjKvi

¯’vb-igbv _vbvaxb 36 wg›Uz †ivW wWwe `wÿY jvjevM

†Rvbvj wUg Gi Awdm K‡ÿ| Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v †gvt

Iqv‡n`y¾vgvb Rã ZvwjKv cÖ¯‘Z K‡ib| Avmvgx †g‡n`x

nvmvb iweb‡K †MÖdZvi Kivi ci Avmvgxi e¨eüZ GKwU

Kv‡jv is‡qi †gvevBj †mU Model- M1804D2SG Rã K‡ib|

Avwg mn G.Gm.AvB †gv: BDbym wgqv D³ Rã ZvwjKvq

¯^vÿi Kwi|
 53

This witness has been declined as he has deposed

no evidence, no statement and even no name of the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam

have been by this PW-16.

According to the evidence of PW-16, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-16 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-17

Constable Md. Shahidul Islam in

respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner:

The PW-17 Constable Md. Shahidul Islam has

made his following deposition during the

examination in chief that Avwg eZ©gv‡b PKevRvi

g‡Wj _vbvq Kg©iZ AvwQ| NUbvi ZvwiL- 07/10/19 Bs mgq

ivZ Abygvb 04t20 wgwbU|

 54

myiZnvj ¯’vb- ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡ji DËi †M‡Ui eviv›`v|

msev` †c‡q PKevRvi _vbvi Gm.AvB †gv: †`‡jvqvi †nv‡mb

mn Avwg I Ab¨vb¨ †dvm© mn NUbv¯’j †k‡ievsjv n‡j Avwm|

ZLb GmAvB †gvt †`‡jvqvi †nv‡mb g„Z Aveivi dvnv‡`i jvk

†`L‡Z cvb| ZLb GmAvB †`‡jvqvi †nv‡mb D³ jv‡ki myiZnvj

wi‡cvU© cÖ¯‘Z K‡ib|

PW-17 Constable Md. Shahidul Islam in his

cross examination has admitted that gvgjvi

Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v hLb Avcbvi wee„wZ wb‡qwQj ZLb K_v

ïbv hvq KvQvKvwQ `~i‡Z¡ GK‡Î Gm.AvB †gvt iæûj Avwgb

Dcw¯’Z wQj wKbv? nu¨v| Gm.AvB iæûj Avwgb ï‡b‡Q|

ZwK©Z Revbe›`xi †`Iqvi mgq Avgvi mv‡_ Gm.AvB gvmy`yi

ingvb wQj| Avcwb gvgjvi AvB/Ii wbKU †Kvb cÖKvi

Revbe›`x cÖ`vb K‡ib bvB-mZ¨ bq| Avcbvi wee„wZ DשZb

cywjk Kg©KZ©v KZ…©K GBK c¨vUv‡b Kwc †có Kiv-mZ¨

bq|

In fact, the 161 statement of this PW-17 and the

examination in chief of this PW-17 are almost

parrot like with other police officers’s statement and

examination in chief except the investigating officers

of this case.

This witness has been crossexamined in short as he

has deposed no evidence, no statement and even no

 55

name of the instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam have been by this PW-17.

According to the evidence of PW-17, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-17 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-18

Dr. Md. Mizanur Rahman in respect of

the charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

The PW-18 Dr. Md. Mizanur Rahman has made his

following deposition during the examination in

chief that NUbvi 07/10/2019 Bs| D³ Zvwi‡L Avwg

ey‡q‡Ui QvÎ Kj¨vY cwiPvjK wnmv‡e `vwqZ¡ cvjb KiwQjvg|

weMZ 07.10.19 Bs ZvwiL ivZ AvbygvwbK 03.00 n‡Z 03.10

wgwb‡U ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡ji cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi Beevj Lvb I

 56

mnKvix nj cÖ‡fvó W. Bd‡ZLvi Avng` Lvb Avgvi ey‡q‡Ui

evmvq 46/7 G G‡m Avgv‡K Nyg †_‡K †W‡K †Zv‡jb Ges

e‡jb †h, †k‡i evsjv n‡j GKRb QvÎ gvW©vi n‡q‡Q|

This witness has adduced no evidence, no

statement and even no name of the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

According to the evidence of PW-18, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-18 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-19

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Khan in respect

of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner:

The PW-19 Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Khan has made his

following deposition during the examination in

 57

chief that NUbvi 07/10/2019 Bs| D³ ZvwiL n‡Z A`¨vew`

ch©šÍ Avwg ey‡q‡Ui AvB.G.wU wWcvU©‡g‡›Ui mnKvix

Aa¨vcK Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji mnKvix nj cÖ‡fvó (ms¯’vcb)

`vwq‡Z¡ Kg©iZ AvwQ| weMZ 07/10/2019Bs ZvwiL ivZ

AvbygvwbK 02.07 wgwb‡U ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡ji

wmwKDwiwU MvW© †gv¯Ídv Avgv‡K †dvbm w`‡q Rvbvq

†h, iweb fvB n‡j Avm‡Z e‡j‡Q| MvW© †gv¯Ídvi mv‡_ K_v

ejvi ci AvbygvwbK ivZ 02.09 wgwb‡U Avwg ey‡q‡Ui QvÎ

Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji †Kwg‡KŠkj wefvM Gi AvevwmK QvÎ

†g‡n`x nvmvb iweb‡K †dvb †`B| iweb Avgv‡K Rvbvq †h

†k‡ievsjv n‡j GKRb wkwei a‡i‡Q| h‡_ó G¨vwf‡WÝ Av‡Q,

cywj‡k w`‡e| ZLb Avwg iweb‡K Qv‡Îi bvg, iæg bs,

wWcvU©‡g›U wel‡q wR‡Ám Kwi Ges iweb‡K ewj †h n‡ji

†Kvb QvÎ wW.Gm.WvweøD I nj cÖ‡fv‡ói AbygwZ e¨wZ‡i‡K

KvD‡K cywj‡k †`Iqv hv‡ebv| Avwg iweb‡K A‡cÿv Ki‡Z ewj|

cieZx©‡Z Avwg n‡ji cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb Ges mnKvix

cÖ‡fvó W. †gvt kvwnbyi Bmjvg Ges wWGmWweøD cÖ‡dmi

W. wgRvbyi ingvb m¨vi‡K †dvb †`B, †U·U †g‡mR cvVvB

Ges †dmeyK †g‡mÄv‡iI †g‡mR cvVvB| g¨v‡mR cvVv‡bvi

AvbygvwbK 20/30 wgwbU ci cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb

m¨vi Avgv‡K †dvb †`b| cÖ‡fvó m¨vi Avgv‡K ey‡q‡Ui

wUPvm© ‡KvqvU©v‡i †h‡Z e‡j| Avwg Avgvi evmv †_‡K

ey‡qU †KvqvUv‡i †cŠQv‡bvi Av‡M †k‡ievsjv n‡ji MvW©

 58

†gvt †gv¯Ívdv Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji QvÎ, iwb‡K †dvb w`‡q

A‡cÿv Ki‡Z ewj Ges m¨vi‡`i wb‡q AvmwQ e‡j Zv‡`i‡K

†dv‡b RvbvB| cieZx©‡Z Avwg ey‡q‡Ui wUPvm©

†KvqvU©v‡i †cŠQvB| †cŠQv‡bvi ci n‡ji cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi

BKevj Lvb Ges †k‡ievsjv n‡ji WvBwbsGi ‡gm eq Kv‡`i I

dwi`‡K cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb m¨v‡ii evmvq †`L‡Z cvB|

cÖ‡fvó m¨vi Avgv‡K AewnZ K‡ib †h, wZwb B‡Zvg‡a¨

ey‡q‡Ui ‡gwW‡Kj †m›Uv‡i Lei w`‡q‡Qb| cÖ‡fvó m¨v‡ii

evmv †_‡K †ei n‡q wWGmWvweøD W. wgRvbyi ingvb

m¨v‡ii evmvq hvIqvi c‡_ ey‡q‡Ui Wv³vi gvmy` Gjvnx,

cÖ‡fvó W. Rvdi BKevj Lvb m¨vi‡K ‡dv‡b Rvbvq †h, QvÎwU

gviv wM‡q‡Q, ZvovZvwo n‡j †h‡Z n‡e|

This PW-19 has admitted in his cross examination that ey‡q‡Ui

Gm.we n‡ji †MBU †_‡K XvKv †gwW‡K‡ji AvbygvwbK

`~iZ¡ 1 wK‡jvwgUvi n‡Z cv‡i| †h‡Kvb Amy¯’¨ e¨w³‡K

nvmcvZv‡j †bIqv nq Zv‡K evuPv‡bvi Rb¨ Bnv mwVK wKbv?

nu¨v| wmwKDwiwU MvW© ivZ 2.20 wgwb‡U Avcbv‡K 2q

evi †dvb w`‡q wQj- mZ¨ bq| wØZxq evi †dvb †`Iqvi D‡Ïk¨

wQj Aveivi dvnv‡`i Amy¯’Zvi K_v ÁvZ Kiv Bnv mwZ¨ wKbv

?- mZ¨ bq| ivZ 02.07 NwUKvq wmwKDwiwU Mv‡W©i cÖ_g

†dvb †c‡q Avcwb †k‡ievsjv n‡j †cŠQv‡j 02.20 wgwb‡U

wØZxq evi Avcbv‡K †dvb Kiv cÖ‡qvRb n‡Zv bv- mZ¨ bq|

Avcbvi DwPZ wQj 02.07 NwUKvq cÖ_g msev` †c‡q m‡½

 59

m‡½ mnKvix cª‡fvó wnmv‡e n‡ji AvBb k„•Ljv iÿvi Rb¨

NUbv¯’‡j †cŠQv- mZ¨ bq| wØZxq evi wmwKDwiwU MvW©

Gi †dvb †c‡q Avcwb KZRb‡K †dvb K‡i‡Qb ? 02 Rb‡K|

KZRb‡K †U·U †g‡mR w`‡qwQ‡jb ? 03 Rb‡K| Avwg †dmeyK

g¨v‡mÄv‡i msev` Rvwb‡qwQjvg| Avwg 02 Rb‡K g¨v‡mÄv‡i

Ki‡Z Avgvi KZ mgq †j‡MwQj GB gyû‡Z© Avgvi Rvbv ‡bB|

Avcwb 2qevi †dvb cvIqvi ci m‡½ m‡½ Amy¯’ Aveivi

dvnv`‡K nvmcvZv‡j wb‡j nq‡Zv Aveivi dvnv` cÖv‡Y †eu‡P

†hZ- mZ¨ bq| Amy¯’ Aveivi dvnv`‡K nvmcvZv‡j bv †bIqvi

†ÿ‡Î Avcbvi Pig Ae‡njv `vqx- mZ¨ bq| Avcwb wØZxq evi

†dvb †c‡q cÖ‡fv‡ói evmvq KZUvi mgq †cŠ‡Q wQ‡jb ? ivZ

AvbygvwbK 02.50 wgwb‡U| Avwg †dvb †c‡q Wv³vi gvmyK

Gjvwn‡K †dvb Kwi bvB| n‡j Qv·`i †Kvb mvwU©‡d‡KU

_v‡Kbv, bvg I wVKvbv _v‡K| †k‡ievsjv n‡ji †Kw›Ub Ges

†Mó iæ‡gi c_ wmwm K¨v‡givi AvIZvq wQj wKbv ?

Kwi‡Wv‡ii GKwU K¨v‡givi AvIZvq Av‡Q| Avcbvi Ges

ey‡qU KZ…©c‡ÿi Ae‡njv RwbZ Kvi‡Y h_vh_ wPwKrmv bv

†c‡q Aveivi dvnv‡`i g„Zz¨ n‡q‡Q Zvi Rb¨ Avcwb mivmwi

Ges Amivmwi ey‡qU KZ…©cÿ `vqx- mZ¨ bq|

This witness has adduced no evidence, no

statement and even no name of the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

 60

According to the evidence of PW-19, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-19 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XV. Analysis of evidence of PW-20

Abu Nawshad Sakib in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

PW-20 Abu Nawshad Sakib in his examination in

chief has stated that weMZ 06.10.2019 Bs ZvwiL mܨv

AvbygvwbK 06.00 wgwb‡U Avwg Avgvi eÜz wmRfx‡K †dvb

†`B EEE wKQz ¯øvBW Gi Rb¨| ZLb wmRfx wUDkwb‡Z

wQj e‡j Avgv‡K iv‡Z n‡j Avm‡j †dvb w`‡e e‡j Rvbvq| H w`b

ivZ 08.00 wgwb‡Ui w`‡K gwbi MÖæ‡c †g‡mR w`‡q

mevB‡K wb‡P bvg‡Z e‡j Ges 2011 bs iæ‡g Avm‡Z e‡j|

...Avwg wmb Kwi bvB| (underline is given for

 61

emphasis) But according to the Forensic Report

dated 31.10.2019 signed by PW-33 SI Md. Rakibul

Hasan it is reported after forensic test that Abu

Noushed Sakib (this PW-20) has made two

comments (one comment ‘ji vai’ is made at 12.38

AM of October 2019 and another comment ‘2011 te

ache’ is made at 12.39 AM of October 2019) and

accordingly it is crystal clear that Abu Noushed

Sakib (this PW-20) has given aforesaid false

evidence for which he should be punished under

section 193 of the Penal Code of 1860 and in order

to do that a step under section 476 read with

195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

shall be taken by this Hon’ble Court.

This witness has adduced no evidence, no

statement and even no name of the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

According to the evidence of PW-20, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner.

In fact, the evidence of PW-20 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

 62

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XV. Analysis of evidence of PW-21

Muhtadi Ahnaf Ansari in respect of

the charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

The prosecution witness No. 21 Muhtadi Ahnaf

Ansari has stated in his examination in chief that-

“weMZ 06.10.2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avgvi kni evox PÆMÖvg

†_‡K ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡j Avwm| Avwg wUDkbx †kl K‡i

Avgvi n‡j ivZ Abygvb 09.00 Uvi w`‡K †k‡i evsjv n‡j

Avwm|...(underline is given for emphasis) c‡i Avwg

†d«m n‡q †bB| Avwg G wb‡q Avi gv_v NvgvB bv& KviY

Ggb NUbv †k‡ievsjv n‡j cªvqB N‡U| Gi K‡hKw`b Av‡M

2011 bs iæ‡g 18 e¨v‡Pi QvÎ wmqvg I Zvw° †K I 17 e¨v‡Pi

Gn‡Zkvgyj nK Zvwbg, †Rwg, ivbv, kvgxg wejøvn mn Av‡iv

K‡qK Rb QvÎ gviai K‡i i¨vM †`q| Avwg †d«m n‡q ivZ

AvbygvwbK 09.30 NwUKvi mgq Avgvi iæ‡g Nywg‡q cwo

Ges 07.10.19 Bs ZvwiL ivZ 01.00 Uvi wKQzÿY Av‡M cov

 63

†jLv Kivi Rb¨ Nyg †_‡K DwV|(underline is given for

emphasis)

This means that he was not aware of the fact of

alleged allegation till 1.00 AM on 07.10.2019 and

thereafter he heard some circumstantial facts from

a person who has not been produced by the

prosecution as prosecution witness and

accordingly his evidence to the extent of

hearsay is definitely a hearsay evidence and not

admissible in law.

According to the evidence of PW-21, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner’s charges.

In fact, the evidence of PW-21 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

Moreover, the this PW-21 has established the

absence of the instant accused petitioner on

04.10.2019 and 05.10.2019 in the Canteen Metting

or Guest House Meetings or even in the Guest Room

 64

Meetings and his non-involvement in the acts -in-

questions of dated 04.10.2019 and 05.10.2019.

In support of this contention of fact of absence of

the instant accused petitioner on 04.10.2019 and

05.10.2019 meetings-in-question, this PW-21 has

admitted that “…০৭.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত ০১ টার

কিছুক্ষণ আগে পরা-লেখা করার জন্য ঘুম থেকে উঠি। ঘুম

থেকে উঠে তার কিছুক্ষণ পর আমি গোসলে যাই। গোসল

থেকে ফিরে রুমে আসার কিছুক্ষণ পর মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম

আমার রুম নং ২০০৭ এ আসে... সে ঐ দিন বাড়ি থেকে শেরে বাংলা হলে

এসেছিল।“(Underlined for emphasis). By the

aforesaid underlined admitted evidence of this PW-

21, it is absolutely clear that intstant accused

petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya islam was not only

absence in the Shere Bangla Hall but also absent in

Dhaka rather it is proved by the unrebutted public

documents submitted in the 342 statements in

writing dated 14.03.2021 and he (Morshed Amartya

 65

islam) was present in Rajshahi has been established

absolutely.

XV. Analysis of evidence of PW-22

Mohammad Galib in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

The prosecution witness No. 22 Mohammad Galib

has stated in his examination in chief that- “weMZ

06.10.2019 Bs Zvwi‡L Avwg †k‡ievsjv n‡jB wQjvg| Avwg

`ycy‡ii w`‡K Nyg †_‡K D‡V WvBwbs G hvB Ges WvBwbs

†_‡K G‡m iæ‡g co‡Z ewm| weKvj 05.30 Uvi w`‡K ‡Mvmj

K‡i K¨vw›U‡b bv¯Ív Ki‡Z hvB| Gici 1011 bs iæ‡g Avgv‡`i

e¨vP‡gU eÜz ivwd, dvnv` Ges ˆmKZ _v‡K e‡j Ab¨vb¨ w`‡bi

gZB Avwg weKv‡ji w`‡K AvÇv w`‡Z †k‡ievsjv n‡ji 1011 bs

iæ‡g hvB| Gici Avwg Avgvi wb‡Ri iæ‡g G‡m co‡Z ewm| ivZ

10.00 Uvi ci Avwg WvBwbs Kivi Rb¨ wb‡P bvwg| H mgq

17Zg e¨v‡Pi mvwKe Gi mv‡_ †`Lv nq| †m Rvbvq wmwbqi

fvB‡qiv 2011 iæ‡g †W‡KwQ‡jb| c‡i WvBwbs G †XvKvi

mgq gv‡R‡`i mv‡_ †`Lv nq Ges GK mv‡_ WvBwbs G

LvIqv `vIqvi Rb¨ ewm| gv‡R`‡K ewj dz‡qj Gi GKwU eB

 66

wb‡Z Zvi iæg bs 3009 G hv‡ev| Gici LvIqvi †k‡l Zv‡K

wRÁvmv Kijvg mvwKe †_‡K ï‡bwQ wmwbqi fvB‡qiv

WvKwQj †m Zv Rv‡b wKbv, ZLb †m e‡j †m Rv‡b bv Ges

e‡jø Pj wM‡q †`wL †Kb WvKwQj| Avwg Zv‡K ewj Avwg gvÎ

mvwKe wbKU †_‡K ïbjvg, wmwbqi fvBiv bvwK WvKwQj|

c‡i †mI e‡j Zvn‡j wM‡q †`wL †Kb WvK‡Q| ivZ 10.30

NwUKvi mgq Avwg gv‡R` Gi mv‡_ iæ‡g wM‡q †`wL

Aveivi dvnv` †d¬v‡i e‡m Av‡Q|(underline is given for

emphasis). Avi Zvi Avkcv‡k 15, 16, 17 e¨v‡Pi A‡b‡K e‡m

Av‡Q| †g‡n`x nvmvb iweb, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb, AwbK

miKvi, BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj, Zvbfxi, gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi,

†Rwg, Zvwbg, mv`vZ, †gv‡k©`, †Zvnv, ivdvZ I Awf‡`i †`wL|

G mgq †`wL BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj Aveivi‡K DËßfv‡e

wewfbœ cÖkœ Ki‡Q, Avi Aveivi wKQz DËi w`‡ZwQj| GB

mgq BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj Aveivi dvnv`‡K Po-_vài †`q| c‡i

Avev‡iv Zv‡K evievi Aveivi dvnv`‡K cÖkœ Ki‡Z _v‡K, Avi

wKQz bvg Rvb‡Z Pvq| wKš‘ Aveivi Rvbvq †m Kv‡iv bvg

Rv‡b bv| d‡j mKvj Aveivi dvnv`‡K Avev‡iv _vài, Nywl †`q| G

mgq gyRvwn` w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q Aveivi‡K K‡qKwU AvNvZ

K‡i wc‡V I Kvu‡a| wKQzÿY ci AwbK miKvi GKwU wµ‡KU

ó¨v¤ú nv‡Z †bq Ges Aveivi‡K Avev‡iv wewfbœ fv‡e cÖkœ

K‡i I wkwei Kviv K‡i Zv‡`i bvg Rvb‡Z Pvq| Aveivi evi evi

Rvbvq, †m Kv‡iv bvg Rv‡b bv Ges Zv‡K †Q‡o w`‡Z e‡j|

 67

wKš‘ AwbK e‡j Aveivi wg_¨v ej‡Q Zvici Aveivi‡K wµ‡KU

ó¨v¤ú w`‡q gvi‡Z _v‡K| Aveivi evi evi Zv‡K †Q‡o w`‡Z e‡j,

wKš‘ AwbK wkwei m¤ú‡K© wKQz Z_¨ Zv‡K w`‡Z e‡j| c‡i

†dvb Avm‡j AwbK miKvi †ei n‡q hvq| G mgq †g‡n`x nvmvb

iweb, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb GivI Aveivi‡K agK †`q| G mgq

16 Zg e¨v‡Pi wgRvbyi ingvb wgRvb, kvgxg wejøvn iæ‡g

Av‡m| H mgq Hiæ‡g 14 Zg e¨v‡Pi †mZz 2009 bs iæ‡g hvq

Ges †mZz iwe‡bi mv‡_ K_v e‡j| Gici AwbK miKvi Avev‡iv

2011 iæ‡g hvq| cybivq Aveivi‡K wewfbœ cÖkœ K‡i| †m

wkwe‡ii Kvi Kvi mv‡_ †hvMv‡hvM K‡i, Zv‡`i bvg ej‡Z e‡j|

Aveiv‡ii Kv‡Q ey‡q‡Ui Ab¨vb¨ n‡j Kviv wkwei K‡i Zv ej‡Z

e‡j| Gici Aveivi dvnv`‡K AwbK miKvi gvi‡Z _v‡K| Gici

AwbK miKvi iæg †_‡K †ei n‡q hvq| Gici Aveivi dvnv` Rvbvq

Zvi gv_v Nyiv‡”Q, k¦vm wb‡Z Kó n‡”Q| H mgq Zv‡K †d¬v‡i

ï‡q †`q| G mgq Avwg iæg †_‡K †ei n‡q hvq Ges Avwg wb‡Ri

iæg 407 G P‡j G‡m Avwg co‡Z ewm| wKš‘ covq g‡bv‡hvM

w`‡Z cviwQjvg bv ZvB Avwg ï‡q cwo Ges Nygv‡bvi †Pôv

Kwi| Gici ivZ AvbygvwbK 02.30 ev 03.00 Uvi w`‡K gv‡R`

Avgvi iæ‡g Av‡m Ges †m Avgv‡K Rvbvq †h Aveivi dvnv`

gviv †M‡Q|(underline is given for emphasis)

This means that PW-22 was not aware of the fact of

alleged allegation till 10.00 AM on 06.10.2019 and

thereafter he heard from Sakib (PW-20) that he has

 68

been called by the senior brothers and then he went

to the room number 2011 and he saw some persons

including one word ‘Morshed’ named person in the

said room.

Here, it is necessary to make the analysis:

(i) Whther this PW-22 saw the facts as has been

narrated by him in his examination in chief to the

extent of charges made in the case?

The clear answer of this question is not at all.

The reason for this answer of “not at all” is the

admission of PW-46. That is, PW-46

Wahidiujjaman who is the charge sheet

submitting investigating officer of this case has

stated in his cross examination that he and three

other prosecution witnesses were not present in

the place of occurrence during the different stages

of the fact of this case. PW-46 has stated in the

following way:

“তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত

ছিলেন। ইহা সত্য কি না ? - সত্য নয়।“ (underlined and bold for

emphasis)
 69

(ii) Whether more than one ‘Morshed’ (one word

name) stays in the Sher-e-Bangla Hall?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘yes’ i.e.

more than one ‘Morshed’ (one word name) may

stay in the Sher-e-Bangla Hall of BUET or in the

BUET as this has been admitted by this PW-22 in

his following language coming at time of his cross

examination that
“একই নামে একাধিক ছাত্র বুয়েটে পড়াশুনা করা অবস্থায় থাকতে পারে কি না ? – হ্যাঁ”

Again PW-46 in his cross examination has

admiited that “এক শব্দ বিশিষ্ট মোর্শেদ নামে কতজন ছাত্র বুয়েটে, বুয়েটের ১৭ ব্যাচ

এবং বুয়েটের এমই বিভাগে অধ্যয়ন করতো জেনেছেন কি না?” – না ।

এক শব্দ বিশিষ্ট মোর্শেদ নামে কতজন ছাত্র বুয়েটের , শেরে বাংলা হলের আবাসিক হলে বসবাস

করতো থা তদন্তে জেনেছিলেন কি না?” – না ।

Here, there is no iota of evidence in respect of

identifying and placing one word name ‘Morshed’

by three words name ‘Morshed Amartya Islam’

and accordingly the one word named ‘Morshed’ is

not the three words name ‘Morshed Amartya

Islam’ and the presence of the said unidentified

(by evidence) ‘Morshed’ is not an offence like Ovi

(PW-23) for the legal position of mere presence in

the place of occurrence without participating

 70

either in the act or omission under section

107 of the Penal Code, 1860 for committing

alleged abetment or alleged murder is not an

offene under any of the following sections 109,

114, 302 and 34 of the said Code, 1860. (Bold

and underlined for emphasis) In support of this

conception there is a legal reference i.e. in the

case of Rasul vs. State reported in PLD 1960

(Karcahi) 956 the aforesaid law (Bold and

underlined) has been established and in the case

Abdul Rahim Uddin @Abdul Rahim And ... vs The State Of Assam

And And Anr it has been held that “mere presence of the

persons at the place of occurrence or an omnibus

allegation against all the accused persons, that they were

also present at the place of occurrence, per se, would not

be sufficient to rope in all such persons for the commission

of offence with the aid of  Section 149 IPC, in absence of

proof of individual overt act [Ref. Pandurang Chandrakant

Mhatre & Ors.-VS- State of Maharashtra reported in (2009)

10 SCC 773] and the reason has been stated in the

aforesaid judgment that the basis of constructive guilt

under  Section 149 IPC is the membership of the unlawful

assembly with the requisite common object or knowledge

and not the individual overt act. Whether a person is the

member of the unlawful assembly or he shared the

 71

common object with the other members of the unlawful

assembly or he had the requisite knowledge, has to be

determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of

each individual case. There cannot be a straight jacket

formula to arrive at a conclusion, as to the membership of

the unlawful assembly or sharing the requisite common

object or knowledge. In case of a mob attack or where a

large number of persons are involved, quite often it is

found, that some people gathers at the scene of

offence out of curiosity, in order to see as to what

has happened or what was going to happen without

being a member of the unlawful assembly or sharing any

common object. Therefore, in case of a mob attack

involving a large number of persons, or in a faction ridden

village community, the court is obliged to be extra

cautious, to ensure that no innocent bystander is falsely

implicated. Absence of such cautiousness and alertness

may result in conviction of an undeserving or innocent

person, leading to miscarriage of justice.”

For the above-mentioned reason, this is necessary

to mention here that PW-22 being the student of

the same hall of the deceased and having no

evidence three words’ name ‘Morshed Amartya

Islam’ in lieu of one word name ‘Morshed’ has

stated that he knows the standing instant

 72

accused petitioner and others in the dock and

identification of the accused in the said dock

though this PW-22 who knew the accused for a

long time in residing in the same hall of BUET has

no evidentiary value and it is not evidence at all

rather the same is done due to erroneous custom

by the prosecution and the dock is not a test

identification parade place according to regulation

282 of police regulations, 1943 as under the said

Regulation 282(e) of PR, 1943 Test Identification

shall be held inside the Jail in accordance with

the provision of law. This is also notable that this

sort of wrong identification in the dock has also

been done by the prosecution illegally in at the

time of taking evidence in respect of some other

prosecution witnesses.

(iii) Whether this PW-22 has given false evidence in

the case?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘yes’ i.e.

this PW-22 has given false evidence as he has

himself stated in his examination in chief that he

was in the place of occurrence but the police

 73

report submitting officer as PW-46 has stated in

cross examination that “তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও

সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত ছিলেন। ইহা সত্য কি না ? - সত্য নয়।“

(underlined and bold for emphasis) and henece it

is clear that this PW-22 has given false evidence

in respect of his presence in ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায়.

(iv) Wther the evidence-in-question of PW-22 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-22) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam.

According to the evidence of PW-22, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

 74

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-22 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XVI. Analysis of evidence of PW-23

Sakhawat Islam Ovi in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

The prosecution witness No. PW-23 Sakhawat

Islam Ovi has stated in his examination in chief

that- “weMZ 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL ivZ Abygvb 08.00 Uvi

w`‡K 16Zg e¨v‡Pi gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi g¨v‡mÄv‡i mevB‡K

bx‡P Avm‡Z e‡j| H ‡g‡mRwU †`‡L Avwg Avgvi iæg bs

203 †_‡K wb‡P hvB|(underline is given for

emphasis). †mLv‡b KvD‡K †`L‡Z bv †c‡q iæg bs 1007

Gi mvg‡b `vwo‡q fvZ LvIqvi Rb¨ iæg bs- 4006 G _vKv

mvBdzj‡K †dvb w`‡q wb‡P Avm‡Z ewj| Gici mvBdzj wb‡P

bvg‡j K¨vw›U‡bi evBK ÷¨v‡Û 17 Zg e¨v‡Pi Gn‡Zkvgyj

 75

ivweŸ Zvwbg, gybZvwmi Avj †Rwg, G.Gm Gg bvRgym

mv`vZ, †nvmvBb †gvnv¤§` †Zvnv †`i †`L‡Z †c‡q Avwg I

mvBdzj Zv‡`i Kv‡Q hvB| Gici Avg I‡`i wRÁvmv Kwi,

fvB‡qiv WvK‡Q †Kv_vq ? Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg e‡j

ÒfvB‡qiv Avm‡e, Av‡M Avgv‡`i mv‡_ 1011 bs iæ‡g Pj,

Aveivi‡K I fvB‡qiv WvK‡QÓ| Gici Avwg I mvBdzj Bmjvg

I‡`i wc‡Q wc‡Q 1011 bs iæ‡g hvB| (underline is given for

emphasis) Gici H iæ‡g Avwg Zvbfxi Avn‡g` ˆmKZ Gi mv‡_

K_v ej‡Z _vwK| ZLb Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg Aveivi‡K

Nyg ‡_‡K †W‡K Zz‡j e‡j, †Zv‡K fvB‡qiv 2011 bs iæ‡g

‡W‡K‡Q| Gici Aveivi †d«m n‡q Avm‡j Gn‡Zkvgyj

ivweŸ Zvwbg Ges G.Gm.Gg bvRgym mv`vZ †K wb‡q

2011 bs iæ‡g hvB| ZLb Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg Avgv‡K

Ges mvBdzj Bmivg‡K e‡j †ZvivI Pj| Gici Avwg I mvBdyj

Bmjvg 1011 iæg †_‡K †ei nB| (underline is given for

emphasis) Gici 1008 bs iæ‡gi mvg‡b kvgxg wejøvn‡K

GKwU bZzb †nj‡gU mn †`wL| Gici Avwg, mvBdzj Bmjvg I

kvwnb Avjg byZb †nj‡gUwU †`L‡Z _vwK| Gi g‡a¨

Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg I GGmGg bvRgym mv`vZ

Aveivi‡K wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡gi D‡Ï‡k¨ 2q Zjvi w`‡K hvq|

Gici †nj‡gUwU †`Lvi mgq †nvmvBb †gvnv¤§` †Zvnv

Avgv‡K I mvBdzj Bmjvg‡K Avev‡iv 2011 bs iæ‡g †h‡Z

e‡j| ZLb Avwg fq †c‡q hvB| (underline is given for

 76

emphasis) KviY Gi AvbygvwbK 7/8 gvm Av‡M ey‡q‡Ui

†k‡ievsjv n‡ji Qv‡` 16Zg e¨v‡Pi AwgZ e‡j, †Zv‡K fvB‡qiv

2011 bs iæ‡g †W‡K‡Q| Gici Aveivi †d«m n‡q n‡q Avm‡j

Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg Ges G.Gm.Gg bvRgym mv`vZ †K

wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡g hvB| ZLb Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg

Avgv‡K Ges mvBdzj Bmjvg‡K e‡j ‡ZvivI Pj| Gici Avwg I

mvBdzj Bmjvg 1011 iæg †_‡K †ei nB| Gici 1008bs iæ‡gi

mvg‡b kvgxg wejøvn‡K GKwU bZzb †nj‡gU mn †`wL|

Gici Avwg, mvBdzj Bmjvg I kvwnb Avjg bZzb ‡nj‡gUwU

†`L‡Z _vwK| Gi g‡a¨ Gn‡Zkvgyj ivweŸ Zvwbg I GGmGg

bvRgym mv`vZ Aveivi‡K wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡gi D‡Ï‡k¨ 2q

Zjvi w`‡K hvq| Gici †nj‡gUwU †`Lvi mgq †nvmvBb

†gvnv¤§` †Zvnv Avgv‡K I mvBdzj Bmjvg‡K Avev‡iv 2011

bs iæ‡g †h‡Z e‡j| ZLb Avwg fq †c‡q hvB| KviY Gi

AvbygvwbK 7/8 gvm Av‡M ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv n‡ji Qv‡`

16Zg e¨v‡Pi AwgZ mvnv Avgv‡K mvjvg bv †`Iqvi Aciv‡a

wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú w`‡q wcwU‡q Avgvi nvZ †f‡½ w`‡qwQj|

(GB mgq ¯^vÿx Zvi Wvb nv‡Zi Kwâi Dc‡i nv‡Zi

gvSvgvwS ¯’v‡bi wfZi ÷x‡ii †jvnvi †cøU Av‡Q e‡j Rvbvq)|

GgZve¯’vq ivZ Abygvb 08.20 NwUKvq Avwg I mvBdzj

Bmjvg 2011 bs iæ‡gi w`‡K hvB| wM‡q †mLv‡b 16 e¨v‡Pi

gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi, L›`Kvi ZvevK&Kviæj Bmjvg Zvbwfi,

BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj Ges gyRZev ivwd` I 17Zg e¨v‡Pi

 77

Gn‡Zkvgyj nK Zvwbg, G GmGg bvRgym mv`vZ Ges

†nvmvBb †gvnv¤§` †Zvnv‡K Lv‡U e‡m _vK‡Z †`wL| H

mgq Aveivi‡K 2011 bs iæ‡gi gvSKv‡b `vuov‡bvi Ae¯’vq

wQj †`L‡Z cvB| Gici Avwg I mvBdzj Bmjvg H iæ‡gi

Lv‡U ewm| Gici gybZvwmi Avj †Rwg Aveiv‡ii 02 (`yB)

wU †gvevBj †dvb I j¨vcUc wb‡q 2011 bs iæ‡g cÖ‡ek K‡i

Ges D³ †gvevBj †dvb I j¨vcUc ¸‡jv 16 e¨v‡Pi D³ fvB‡`i

wbKU †dvb 2wU I j¨vcUc †PK Kivi Rb¨ †`q| Gici 1wU

†gvevBj BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj I Ab¨ †gvevBjwU †gv¯Ídv

ivwd` Ges j¨vcUcwU gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi Ges L›`Kvi

ZveveKKviæj Bmjvg Zvbfxi †PK Ki‡Z _v‡K| Gi g‡a¨

2011 bs iæ‡g 17 e¨v‡Pi †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg, mvgQzj

Av‡iwdb ivdvZ Ges gv‡R`yi ingvb gv‡R` I 16 e¨v‡Pi

gyRvwn`yi ingvb cÖ‡ek K‡i| GiB g‡a¨ †Kvb GKmgq

†gv¯Ídv ivwd` P‡j hvq Ges †gv¯Ídv ivwd‡`i mv‡_ †RwgI

†ei nq| Gici BdwZ †gvkviid mKvj H iæ‡g _vKv Aveivi‡K

†Riv Ki‡Z ïiæ K‡i †h, ZzB wkwei Kwim wKbv ? Aveivi

e‡j bv Avwg wkwei Kwibv Ges Avwg KL‡bv G¸‡jvi mv‡_

m¤ú„³ wQjvgbv| ... (underline is given for emphasis) Gici

Abygvb ivZ 09.45 wgwb‡Ui mgq †g‡n`x nvmvb iweb

Aveiv‡ii gy‡L Pi _vào gviv ïiæ K‡i|... ZLb Avwg

gwbiæ¾vgvb gwbi‡K ewj fvB Avwg fvZ †L‡Z hve| ZLb

AbgwZ †c‡q Avwg Avi mvBdzj Bmjvg 2011 bs iæg †_‡K

 78

‡ei n‡q hvB| (underline is given for emphasis) GB

NUbv KvD‡K Rvbv‡j Avgv‡KI gvi‡Z cv‡i GB Rb¨ Avwg

NUbv KvD‡K ewj bvB| Gici Avwg Ges mvBdzj Bmjvg

Gwjd¨v›U †iv‡W óvi †nv‡U‡j †L‡Z P‡j hvB| HLvb †_‡K

Avwg I mvBdzj P‡j Avwm Ges Avwg Avgvi †k‡ievsjv n‡ji

203 bs iæ‡g P‡j Avwm Ges Nywg‡q cwo| Gici 07/10/2019

Bs Zvwi‡L Abygvb ivZ 03.20 wgwb‡U mvBdzj Bmjvg

Avgv‡K Nyg †_‡K †W‡K †Zv‡j Ges e‡j Aveivi dvnv` Avi

†bB| Aveivi dvnv` gviv †M‡Q|(underline is given for

emphasis)

This means that PW-23 was aware of the fact of

alleged allegation on 06.10.2019 from 08.00 PM

to till at least 9.45 PM and thereafter he came to

know the death of the deceased of this case at

3.20 AM of 07.10.2019. This clearly states that

he was present in the place of occurrence and at

the same this also establishes a fact that mere

presence in the place of occurrence without

participating either in the act or omission

under section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 for

committing alleged abetment or alleged

murder is not an offene under any of the

following sections 109, 114, 302 and 34 of the

 79

said Code, 1860. (Bold and underlined for

emphasis). In support of this conception there is a

legal reference i.e. in the case of Rasul vs. State

reported in PLD 1960 (Karcahi) 956 the

aforesaid law (Bold and underlined) has been

established.

If the aforementioned fact of the presence of this

PW-23 in the place of occurrence (Room 2011) is,

for arguments say, considered as true, then it is

clear that mere presence in the place of

occurrence without participating either in the

act or omission under section 107 of the Penal

Code, 1860 for committing alleged abetment

or alleged murder is not an offene under any of

the following sections 109, 114, 302 and 34 of

the said Code, 1860 and for the same reason,

according to the narration of this PW-23, the only

entrance of the instant accused petitioner in the

said room No. 2011 without participating either

in the act or omission under section 107 of the

Penal Code, 1860 for committing alleged

abetment or alleged murder is not an offene

 80

under any of the following sections 109, 114,

302 and 34 of the said Code, 1860.

But this is fundamentally nevessary to see what

evidence has been adduced by the charge sheet

submitting investigating officer (PW-46). This

raises a question i.e. whether this PW-23 has

given false evidence in the case?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘yes’ i.e.

this PW-23 has given false evidence as he has said

that he was in the place of occurrence but the

police report submitting officer as PW-46 has

stated that “তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন

পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত ছিলেন। ইহা সত্য কি না ? - সত্য নয়।“ (underlined and

bold for emphasis) and henece it is clear that this

PW-23 has given false evidence in respect of his

presence in ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় particularly in the room

numbers 2011.

This also raises another question i.e. wether the

evidence-in-question of PW-23 has expressed and

established any facts to the extent of the charges

framed against the instant accused petitioner?

 81

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-23) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam.

According to the evidence of PW-23, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-23 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XVII. Analysis of evidence of PW-24

Tanvir Ahamed Soikot in respect of

the charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:
 82

The prosecution witness No. 24 PW-24 Tanvir Ahamed

Soikot has stated in his examination in chief that- “…

ঘটনার তারিখ ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং। উক্ত তারিখে আমি শেরেবাংলা হলের

১০১১ রুমে বিকালে ঘুমিয়ে ছিলাম। উক্ত তারিখে বিকাল অনুমান ০৩:০০

মিনিট হতে ০৪:০০ টার মধ্যে আবরার ফাহাদ তার গ্রামের বাড়ী কু ষ্টিয়া থেকে

শেরেবান্নগ্লা হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে আসে। বিকাল আনুমানিক ০৫:৩০ টার

দিকে আমি ঘুম থেকে উঠি এবং দেখতে পাই আবরার ফাহাদ তার টেবিলে

বসে খাওয়া-দাওয়া করছে। আবরার ফাহাদ বাড়ী থেকে খাবার এনেছে বলে সে

আমাকে তার সাথে খেতে বললে আমি হাত, মুখ ধুয়ে আবরার ফাহাদের সাথে

খেতে বসি। খাওয়া শেষে আমি শেরেবাংলা হলের ক্যান্টিনে ড্রিংকস খেতে

যাই। এরপর আমি আমার হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে ফিরে আসি এবং আবরার

ফাহাদকে তার বিছানায় বসে ফেসবুক চালাতে দেখি। এরপর আমি আমার

টেবিলে পড়তে বসি। মাগরিবের নামাজ পড়ে আবরার ফাহাদ আমাকে বলে

সে ঘুমাতে যাবে এবং তাকে ৯:০০ টার দিকে তাকে ঘুম থেকে ডাক দিতে

বলে, কারণ সে ঘুম থেকে উঠে পড়বে। আবরার ফাহাদ ঘুমিয়ে পড়ে। রাত

অনুমান ০৮:০০ টার দিকে ১৭ ব্যাচের মুনতাসির আল জেমি এবং

 83

এহতেশামুল রাব্বি তানিম আমাদের রুমে প্রবেশ করে। কিছুক্ষণ পর তাদের

পিছনে ১৭ ব্যাচের সাখাওয়াত ইকবাল অভি এবং সাইফু ল ইসলাম আমাদের

১০১১ নং রুমে প্রবেশ করে।(underline and bold for emphasis)

সাখাওয়াত ইকবাল অভি আমাকে জিজ্ঞাসা করে, আমার রুমমেট রাফি

কোথায়। আমি বললাম আমি জানি না। এ সময় এহতেশামুল রাব্বি তানিম

এবং মুনতাসির আল জেমি আবরার ফাহাদের কাছে যায় এবং ঘুম থেকে

ডেকে তোলে, আবরার ফাহাদ ঘুম থেকে উঠে যায়। মুনতাসির আল জেমি

তখন আবরার ফাহাদকে বলে বড় ভাইয়েরা ডাকে। আবরার ফাহাদ তখন

জিজ্ঞাসা করে বলে কোথায়? তখন মুনতাসির আল জেমি বলে হাজার ব্লকের

দবিতীয় তলায়। মুনতাসির আল জেমি আবরার ফাহাদকে তার মোবাইল

ফোন ও ল্যাপটপ সাথে নিয়ে আসতে বলে। মুনতাসির আল জেমি,

এহতেশামুল রাব্বি তানিম এবং এ.এস.এম নাজুমুস সাদাত আবরার

ফাহাদকে নিয়ে ১০১১ নং রুম থেকে বের হয়ে যায়। তাদের পিছনে সাখাওয়াত

ইকবাল অভি এবং সাইফু লও বের হয়ে যায়। এরপর আমি পড়তে থাকি।

রাত অনুমান ০৯:০০ টার দিকে শেরেবাংলা হলের ডাইনিং এ আমি খেতে

যাই। খাওয়া শেষে আমি পলাশীতে কপি খেতে যাই।|(underline and

 84

bold for emphasis) পলাশী থেকে শেরেবাংলা হলে আনুমানিক রাত

১০:০০ টার দিকে ১০১১ নং রুমের সামনে এসে দেখি রুম তালাবদ্ধ। এরপর

আমি হলের পাশের ১০১০ রুমে যাই। এবং ফেসবুক চালাই। পরে রাত

অনুমান ১০:৩০ এর দিকে আমি আবার রুমে ফিরে আসি তখন দেখি রুম

খোলা।|(underline and bold for emphasis) ১০১১ নং রুমে

তখন ১৬ তম ব্যাচের মিজানুর রহমান, রাফি এবং সাইফু লকে রুমে দেখতে

পাই। এরপর আমি পড়তে বসি। রাত অনুমান ১১:০০ টার দিকে ১৭ ব্যাচের

মুনতাসির আল জেমি আমাদের রুম ১০১১ তে প্রবেশ করে এবং মুনতাসির

আল জেমি ১০১১ নং রুমে এসে আবরার ফাহাদ এর একটা ট্রাউজার ও শার্ট

নিয়ে যায়। ০৭/৪/১০/১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত অনুমান ০২:২০ এর দিকে তিতু মীর

হলের সামনে সিরাজের টং দোকানে খেতে যাই আমি। খাওয়া শেষে

০৭/১০/১৯ ইং তারিখ অনুমান রাত অনুমান ০৩:০০ টার দিকে আমি

শেরেবাংলা হলে ফিরে আসি এবং তখন শেরেবাংলা হলের নিচ তলায় গেটের

সামনে আবরার ফাহাদকে স্ট্রেচারের উপর শুয়ানো অবস্থায়|(underline

and bold for emphasis)

This means that he was not aware of the fact of

alleged charges in the instant case and he was aware

 85

only the fact of taking the deceased from the room

number 1011 and he has not heard anything as to

the fact of framed charges and accordingly his

evidence is not direct and not admissible in law.

According to the evidence of PW-24, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner’s charges.

In fact, the evidence of PW-24 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

XVII. Analysis of evidence of PW-25

Md. Touhidul Islam Rafi in respect

of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner:

The prosecution witness No. PW-25 Md. Touhidul

Islam Rafi has stated in his examination in chief

that- “ঘটনার তারিখ ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং। বিগত ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং তারিখে

বুয়েটের শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে থাকিতাম। আমি বর্ত মানে বুয়েট
 86

ইলেকট্রিক্যাল এন্ড ইলেকট্রিক ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিং বিভাগ,১৭ তম ব্যাচ এর ছাত্র ।

বিগত ০৬/১০/২০১৯ইং তারিখে শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুম থেকে

বিকাল ০৫:০০ টা নাগাদ খালার বাসার উদ্দেশ্যে বেড়িয়ে যাই। খালার বাসা

দক্ষিন ফু লার রোড, শাহবাগ আবাসিক এলাকায়।আমি খালার বাসায় রাত

আনুমানিক ০৮:৩০ পর্যন্ত অবস্থন করি। রাত আনুমানিক ০৮:৩০ মিনিটে

খালার বাসা থেকে বুয়েটের শেরেবাংলা হলের উদ্দেশ্যে বের হই এবং রাত

আনুমানিক ০৮:৫০ মিনিটে শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুমে পৌছাই। তখন

আমার ১০১১ নং রুমে আমার রুমমেট তানভীর আহমেদ সৈকত ও মিজানুর

রহমান মিজানকে দেখতে পাই।তখন আমার ১০১১ নং রুমে আবরার ফাহাদ

‍ছিলো না। আমি আনুমানিক রাত ১১:০০টা পর্যন্ত আমার রুমেই অবস্থান করি।

এর রাত ১১:০০/১১:১০ টায় রুম নং-৪০০৬ এর মধ্যে সাইফু ল ইসলামের

সাথে ম্যাসেঞ্জারে কথা হয়। ওর কথাবার্তা কিছুটা অসংলগ্ন মনে হওয়ায় আমি

রাত ১১:৩০ টায় আমি শেরে বাংলা হলের রুম নং -৪০০৬ এ যাই ওকে

দেখতে।যাওয়ার পর আমি দেখি যে, সাইফু ল ওর বিছানায় শুয়ে ছিল। ওকে

খুবই চিন্তিত দেখাচ্ছিল। ওই সময় পরে সাইফু ল আমাকে নিয়ে রুমের বাইরে

করিডোরে আসে ও সে আমাকে জানায় যে, আবরারকে আমাদের হলের

 87

আমাদের ব্যাচেরই কয়েকজন ছেলে ২০১১ নং রুমে নিয়ে গিয়েছে। আমি নাম

জানতে চাইলে সাইফু ল আমাকে তানিম, জেমি সহ আরো কয়েকজন ছাত্রের

নাম জানায়।... এই কথা শুনে আমিও চিন্তিত হয়ে পরি ও আমার ১০১১ নং

রুমে চলে আসি।

...বিগত ০৭/১০/১৯ ইং তারিখে রাত আনুমানিক ১:৪৫ থেকে ২:০০ মিনিটের

সময় সাইফু ল তার রুমের উদ্দেশ্যে চলে যায়। সাইফু ল পুনরায় রাত

আনুমানিক ২:৩০ থেকে ২:৪৫ মিনিটের মধ্যে আমার অর্থাৎ ১০১১ নং রুমে

আসে । সাইফু ল আমাদের রুমে আবরারের শার্ট নেওয়ার জন্য এসেছিল ও

আবরারের শার্ট নিয়ে সে বেরিয়ে যায় এবং সাইফু ল আরো জানায় যে

আবররার কে হাসপাতালে নেওয়া হবে।এই কথা শুনে আমরা চিন্তিত হয়ে পড়ি

এবং কি করব তা বুঝতে পারছিলাম না। এরপর সাইফু ল শার্ট নিয়ে বের হয়ে

যায়।এরপর রাত আনুমানিক ০৩:০০ থেকে ০৩:১৫ মিনিটের মধ্যে ১৭ তম

ব্যাচের আরাফাত রহমান আমাদের রুমে ১০১১ তে আসে এবং আরাফাত

রহমান আমাদেরকে জানায় যে , আমাদের রুম থেকে একজন কে যেতে হবে ।

ঐ সময় ১০১১ নং রুমে ১৬ তম ব্যাচের মিজানুর রহমান মিজান ছিলেন এবং

আমর আরেক রুমমেট তানভীর আহমেদ সৈকত এর আগে হাটতে বেরিয়ে

 88

ছিলেন। আমি আরাফাত রহমানের সাথে যাই এবং হলের গেটের দিকে

যাচ্ছিলাম।এবং যাওয়ার পথে প্রথম ও দ্বিতীয় তলার ল্যান্ডিংয়ে আবরার

ফাহাদকে একটি তোষকের উপর পড়ে থাকতে দেখি। তার পায়ে রক্ত জমাট

হয়েছিল। ঐ সময় আবরারের পাশে ছিলেন বুয়েটের ডাক্তার মাসুক এলাহি।

আমি যাওয়ার কিছুক্ষণ পরে ডাক্তার মাসুক এলাহি বলেন যে, আবরার ফাহাদ

আর বেঁচে নেই। (underlined and bold for emphasis)

This means that he was not aware of the fact of

alleged charges in the instant case and he the fact in

part in a sentence in fact in respect of the instant

accused petitioner is not an offence for which no

charge regarding this has been framed and he has not

heard anything as to the fact of framed charges in the

case and accordingly his evidence is not direct and

not admissible in law.

Moreover, this PW-25 has admitted in his cross

examination that- আপনি তদন্তকারী কর্মকর্তার নিকট মাত্র একটি

শব্দের নাম মোর্শেদ বলেছেন কিনা?- হ্যাঁ। আপনি আজ অন্যের শিখানো মতে

ট্রাইবুনালে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম বলেছেন- সত্য নয়। পি.পির শিখানো মতে
 89

এক শব্দ থেকে তিন শব্দের নাম বলেছেন কিনা- সত্য নয়।(underlined

and bold for emphasis).

Here the PW-25 has established the fact of one word

name Morshed which was mentioned by him in his

161 statement before the investigating officer but the

said witness in his cross examination has testified

that three words name Morshed Amartya Islam.

According to the custom and practice of our

subcontinent particularly of Bangladesh the Public

Prosecutor instruct the witnesses what to say, how to

say it, and what to suppress and accordingly this PW-

25 has admitted in his cross examination that the

fact of one word name Morshed in his own narrated

language আপনি তদন্তকারী কর্মকর্তার নিকট মাত্র একটি শব্দের নাম

মোর্শেদ বলেছেন কিনা?- হ্যাঁ।. This reality of our Public

Prosecutor has been expressed very correctly in the

Calcutta Review, Vol. XLIV, No LXXXVII, 1867 in the

following language:

“In England counsels have no communication with

the witnesses before they are called into the box. In

America, on the otherhand, it is a common practice

 90

for practioners to have an interview with the

witnesses in order to ascertain what they really know:

but in India the mookhtar considers it his duty, after

ascertaining this, to instruct the witness what to say,

how to say it, and what to suppress, telling him that

spoiling of the case will be the inevitable result of his

directions not being followed.”

According to the evidence of PW-25, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused petitioner

in respect of the charges framed against him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-25 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

XVIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-26

Yamin Hosen in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

The prosecution witness No PW-26 Yamin Hosen has

stated in his cross examination that- “আপনি তর্কি ত ঘটনার

 91

দিন কখন থেকে রাত ০৩:০০টা পর্যন্ত পড়তে ছিলেন?- রাত ০৮:০০ টা

থেকে। উক্ত রাত ০৩:০০ টার পূর্বের ঘটনা কার নিকট থেকে শুনেছি তৎমর্মে

এই মুহুর্তে আমার স্মরণ নাই। (underlined and bold for

emphasis)

This means that he was not aware of the fact of

alleged charges in the instant case and and

accordingly his evidence is not direct and not

admissible in law.

Moreover, this PW-26 though has stated one word

name Morshed in his 161 statement during

investigation but for the custom and practice

mentioned earlier (it has been mentioned in the

analysis of evidence of PW-25), he suppressing the

fact of one word name has stated three words name

Mosrshed Amartya Islam.

According to the evidence of PW-26, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused petitioner

in respect of the charges framed against him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-26 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

 92

XIX. Analysis of evidence of PW-27

Wahidur Rahman Rafsan in respect of

the charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

What has been stated by the prosecution witness No

PW-27 Wahidur Rahman Rafsan in his 161 statement,

examination in chief and in the cross examination it

is transparent that, he was not aware of the fact of

alleged allegation i.e. the facts of the charges framed

in the instant case and thereafter he heard some

circumstantial facts in part from a person who has

not been produced by the prosecution as

prosecution witness and accordingly his evidence

is definitely a hearsay evidence and not admissible

in law. He is not an eye witness of the facts of this

case for which the charges are framed in the case.

In his examination in chief he has admitted that

“পরে জানতে পারি শেরেবাংলা হলের ১০১১ নং রুম থেকে আবরার ফাহাদ

কে ২০১১ নং রুমে ০৬.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে আনুমানিক রাত ০৮.০০ টার

 93

সময় রুম নং ২০১১ টে ডেকে নিয়ে … কিল-ঘুষি, চর-থাপ্পর ও লাথি-গুতা

মেরে আবরার ফাহাদ কে মেরে ফেলেছে।“

Here, this witness has not stated from whom he has

heard the aforesaid fact of allegation and hence his

evidence is not direct and being hearsay without

source person is definitely inadmissible.

According to the evidence of PW-27, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner’s charges.

In fact, the evidence of PW-27 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

In addition to this, he has given self-contradictory

and in fact false evidence to in respect of the instant

accused petitioner. And this is also mentionable

here that the entrance in the room no. 2007 is not

an offence for which no charge has been made.

MoreMoreover, for the support of the above-

mentioned contention of adducing self-contradictory

and false evidence in respect of one word name

 94

‘Morshed’ and three words ‘Morshed Amartya

Islam’ the following discrepancies and

contradictions are salient in the naked eye to under

under the same.

Serial Statement under Statement in Statement in Cross

Examination-in examination
No. Section 161 of
-Chief
CrPC
1. ... Gi gv‡S †gvi‡k` ...Gi gv‡SI †gvi‡k` ...‡gvi‡k` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
K‡qKevi Avgvi iæ‡g AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †ek Avcbvi iæ‡g Kw_Z mg‡q
Av‡m... K‡qKevi n‡ji 2007 hvq bvB|- mZ¨ bq...
bs iæ‡g Av‡m...
2. ...Avwg iy‡g wd‡i ...2007 bs iy‡g G‡m ...‡gvi‡k` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
G‡m †`wL †gvi‡k` †`wL †gvi‡k` 2007 bs iæ‡g hvq bvB,
e‡m Av‡Q... AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Avcbvi weQvbvq e‡m
Avgvi weQvbvq bvB- mZ¨ bq...
e‡m Av‡Q...
3. ...‡gvi‡k`‡K †ek ...‡gvi‡k` AgZ©¨ ...Zv‡K wegl© ‡`Lvw”Qj
wegl© I weaŸ¯Í Bmjvg ‡K †ek bv- mZ¨ bq...
jvMwQj... wegl© I weaŸ¯Í
jvMwQj...

Poin
 95

This evidence of the instant prosecution witness has become

self-contradictory and false evidence for the wrong

practice of the public prosecutor’s instruction as has

been expreesed in the Calcutta Review mentioned in

the analysis of the evidence of prosecution witness

No. 25 of this case. Moreso, the entrance in the room

no. 2007 is not an offence as no charge has been

framed in respect of this entrance.

XX. Analysis of evidence of PW-28

Saiful Islam in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

After perusal of the evidence of prosecution

witness No PW-28 Saiful Islam adduced in the

 96

examination in chief it is crystal clear that PW-28

was aware of the fact of alleged allegation on

06.10.2019 from 08.00 PM to on 07.10.2019

till 2.30 PM. He went into the room number 2011

and stayed their as per his narration during his

examination in chief and according to the video

available in the Youtube he was present at the

time of keeping the deceased in the landing place

of the stair i.e. in the ‘Gha’ identified place of

occurenec in question. This clearly states that he

entered in the room number 2011 and was

present in the place of occurrence and at the

same time this also establishes a fact that mere

presence in the place of occurrence without

participating either in the act or omission

under section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 for

committing alleged abetment or alleged

murder is not an offene under any of the

following sections 109, 114, 302 and 34 of the

said Code, 1860. (Bold and underlined for

emphasis). In support of this conception there is a

legal reference i.e. in the case of Rasul vs. State

reported in PLD 1960 (Karcahi) 956 the

 97

aforesaid law (Bold and underlined) has been

established.

If the aforementioned fact of the presence of this

PW-28 in the place of occurrence (Room 2011) is,

for arguments say, considered as true, then it is

clear that mere presence in the place of

occurrence without participating either in the

act or omission under section 107 of the Penal

Code, 1860 for committing alleged abetment

or alleged murder is not an offene under any of

the following sections 109, 114, 302 and 34 of

the said Code, 1860 and for the same reason,

according to the narration of this PW-28, the only

entrance of the instant accused petitioner in the

said room No. 2011 without participating either

in the act or omission under section 107 of the

Penal Code, 1860 for committing alleged

abetment or alleged murder is not an offene

under any of the following sections 109, 114,

302 and 34 of the said Code, 1860.

But this is fundamentally nevessary to see what

evidence has been adduced by the charge sheet

 98

submitting investigating officer (PW-46). This

raises a question i.e. whether this PW-28 has

given false evidence in the case?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘yes’ i.e.

this PW-28 has given false evidence as he has said

that he was in the place of occurrence but the

police report submitting officer as PW-46 has

stated that “তর্কি ত ঘটনার সময় গালিব, অভি, সাইফু ল ও সাকিব ঘটনার বিভিন্ন

পরিক্রমায় উপস্থিত ছিলেন। ইহা সত্য কি না ? - সত্য নয়।“ (underlined and

bold for emphasis) and henece it is clear that this

PW-28 has given false evidence in respect of his

presence in ঘটনার বিভিন্ন পরিক্রমায় particularly in the room

numbers 2011.

This PW-28 has also admitted in his cross

examination that “ফাহাদের শুধু খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল? আনুমানিক

রাত ০২.৩০ মিনিটে। আবরার ফাহাদের আরো খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল ? সিঁড়ির

ল্যান্ডিং স্থানে।“

“This means that the death of the Abrar Fahad is

on 07.10.2019 after 2.30 PM but according to the

charges framed by this Tribunal based on the first

information and the charge sheet, the death of the

deceased is within 2.30 PM on 07.10.2019 and

 99

hence the evidence “ফাহাদের শুধু খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল?

আনুমানিক রাত ০২.৩০ মিনিটে। আবরার ফাহাদের আরো খারাপ অবস্থা কখন শুরু হয়েছিল ?

সিঁড়ির ল্যান্ডিং স্থানে। is false and contradictory with the

charges.

This also raises another question i.e. wether the

evidence-in-question of PW-28 has expressed and

established any facts to the extent of the charges

framed against the instant accused petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-28) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-28, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-28 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.
 100

XXI. Analysis of evidence of PW-29

Md. Ismail in respect of the charges

made against the instant accused

petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-29 Md. Ismail as per

his adduced evidence is not an eye witness as he

did his many things and came out from his room

at 2.40-2.45 PM on 07.10.2019 and heard

somethings from Akash who has not been

produced as witness and accordingly his evidence

being hearsay without the production of Akash is

not admissible in evidence.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-29 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.
 101

This witness (PW-29) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-29, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-29 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXII. Analysis of evidence of PW-30

Md. Abdul Kader in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-30 Md. Abdul Kader

as per his adduced evidence is not an eye witness

as he has admitted in his cross examination that

“আপনি ঘুম থেকে উঠার পূর্বের কোন ঘটনা জানতেন না। ইহা সঠিক কি

না ?-হ্যাঁ । and he came out from his bed that is, from
 102

sleeping condition at 2.15 PM on 07.10.2019 and

heard somethings from Security Guard Smasul

who has not been produced as witness and

accordingly his evidence being hearsay without

the production of Security Guard Samsul is not

admissible in evidence.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-30 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-30) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-30, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.
 103

In fact, the evidence of PW-30 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-31

Dr. Sohel Mahmud in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-31 Dr. Sohel Mahmud

was working in the Dhka Medical college Hospital

during the time of alleged occurrence and

according to his adduced evidence he is not an

eye witness and he has just made the post

mortem of the deceased.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-31 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?
 104

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-31) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-31, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-31 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-32

Constable Dostogir Hossain in

respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner:

 105

This prosecution witness PW-32 Constable

Dostogir Hossain was working in the Chakbazar

police station DMP, Dhaka during the time of

alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-32 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-32) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-32, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-32 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

 106

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-33

SI Md. Rakibul Hasan in respect of

the charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-33 SI Md. Rakibul

Hasan was working in the CID, Dhaka during the

time of alleged occurrence and according to his

adduced evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-33 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-33) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

 107

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-33, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-33 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXV. Analysis of evidence of PW-34

Abul Kalam in respect of the charges

made against the instant accused

petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-34 Abul Kalam was

working as Driver in BUET, Dhaka during the

time of alleged occurrence and according to his

adduced evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-34 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

 108

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-34) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-34, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-34 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVI. Analysis of evidence of PW-35

Md. Momirul Islam in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:
 109

This prosecution witness PW-35 Md. Momirul

Islam was working in Cumilla during the time of

alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-35 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-35) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-35, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-35 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

 110

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVI. Analysis of evidence of PW-36

Md. Kamrul Hasan in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-36 Md. Kamrul Hasan

was working as PS to VC of BUET and according

to his adduced evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-36 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-36) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

 111

According to the evidence of PW-36, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-36 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVI. Analysis of evidence of PW-37

Md. Mustofa in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-37 Md. Mustofa was

working as security guard during the time of

alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-37 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?
 112

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-37) has adduced no

incriminating evidence against instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam to the extent of

participating in any acts of either abetment or

main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-37, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-37 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVII. Analysis of evidence of PW-38

Md. Abdul Quader in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:
 113

This prosecution witness PW-38 Md. Abdul Quader

was Rampura, Dhaka during the time of alleged

occurrence and according to his adduced evidence

he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-38 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-38) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-38, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-38 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

 114

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVIII. Analysis of evidence of PW-

39 Md. Zakir Hasan Imon in respect

of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-39 Md. Zakir Hasan

Imon was Rampura, Dhaka during the time of

alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-38 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.
 115

This witness (PW-39) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-39, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-39 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-40

ASI AK Njmul Hosen in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

This prosecution witness ASI PW-40 AK Njmul

Hosen was working in the CID, Dhaka during the

time of alleged occurrence and according to his

adduced evidence he is not an eye witness.

 116

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-40 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-40) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-40, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-40 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXVIV. Analysis of evidence of PW-41

Abdul Mubin IBNE Hafiz aias Prottoy

 117

in respect of the charges made

against the instant accused

petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-41 Abdul Mubin Ibne

Hafiz aias Prottoy was a BUET student, Dhaka

who was not present in the place of occurrence

during the time of alleged occurrence and

according to his adduced evidence he is not an

eye witness as he entered into Sher e Bangla Hall

at 3.15 PM on 07.10.2019.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-41 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent

of the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at

all’ i.e.

This witness (PW-41) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

 118

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-41, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-41 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXIX. Analysis of evidence of

PW-42 Tajwar Bokhtiar Zahid in

respect of the charges made

against the instant accused

petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-42 Tajwar Bokhtiar

Zahid was a BUET student, Dhaka who was not

present in the place of occurrence during the time

of alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

evidence he is not an eye witness.

 119

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-42 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent of

the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at all’

i.e.

This witness (PW-42) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-42, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-42 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

Inaddition to this, this PW-42 has admitted that

‘Morshed’ and ‘Morshed Amartya Islam’ are only eye

 120

witnesses (not accused) as he has admitted in his

cross examination that:

আপনি যে †gv‡k©` এর নিকট থেকে ঘটনা শুনেছেন সে দেখা সাক্ষী না শুনা

সাক্ষী – সে দেখা সাক্ষী। যে †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg থেকে আপনি ঘটনা

শুনেছেন সে দেখা সাক্ষী না শুনা সাক্ষী – সে দেখা সাক্ষী।

In view of the aforesaid admission of this PW-42, it

is admitted that instnat accused petitioner was ans

is in fact an eye-witness but the investigating has

wrongly and intentionally his name has been

included as accused without mentioning him as

witness in the charge sheet and this is the complete

failure of the investigating officer of this case.

XXX. Analysis of evidence of

PW-43 Dr. Md. Abdullah Adnan in

respect of the charges made

against the instant accused

petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-43 Dr. Md. Abdullah

Adnan was a BUET teacher, Dhaka who was not

 121

present in the place of occurrence during the time

of alleged occurrence and according to his adduced

evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-43 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent of

the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at all’

i.e.

This witness (PW-43) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-43, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-43 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.
 122

XXXI. Analysis of evidence of

PW-44 Md. Akterujjaman Inspector

of Police, Photography expert in

respect of the charges made

against the instant accused

petitioner:

This prosecution witness PW-44 Md. Akterujjaman

was not present in the place of occurrence during

the time of alleged occurrence and according to his

adduced evidence he is not an eye witness.

Wether the evidence-in-question of PW-44 has

expressed and established any facts to the extent of

the charges framed against the instant accused

petitioner?

The answer of this question is definitely ‘Not at all’

i.e.

This witness (PW-44) has adduced no evidence

against instant accused petitioner Morshed

 123

Amartya Islam to the extent of participating in any

acts of either abetment or main alleged offenece.

According to the evidence of PW-44, there is no an

iota of evidence against the instant accused

petitioner to the extent of charges made against

him.

In fact, the evidence of PW-44 is nothing i.e. no

evidence in respect of the charges made against the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam.

XXXII. Analysis of evidence of PW-

45 and PW-46 in respect of the

charges made against the instant

accused petitioner:

According to the charges framed on 15.09.2020

there are total 7 stages of the alleged allegation

which are mentioned and analyzed as follows.

 124

(i) Pre-planning-in-question (তর্কি তপূর্ব-

পরিকল্পনা…):

(ii) conspiracy in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi

†hvMmvR‡k)

(iii) Aid in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv)

(iv) Common intention-in-question (তর্কি ত

Awfbœ AwfcÖv য়)

(v) Meeting dated 04.10.2019 held at any

time after 6 p.m. in the Shere Bangla Hall

Canteen.

(vi) Meeting dated 05.10.2019 at any time

after 10 p.m. in the guest house of Shere

Bangla hall.

(vii)   The allegation of “চড়, থাপ্পর, লাথি, কিল, ঘুষি

মেরে, কনুই দিয়ে পিঠে, ক্রিকেট স্ট্যাম্প, স্কিপিং রোপ দিয়ে

নির্মম ভাবে পিটিয়ে ৪০/৫০টি মারাত্মক গুরুতর রক্তাক্ত

জখমসহ হত্যা করা।”.

(i) Pre-planning-in-question

(তর্কি তপূর্ব-পরিকল্পনা…):
 125

This part (i) has established in respect of time i.e.

the time of meetings-in-question held on dated

04.10.2019 at any time after 6 p.m. in the Shere

Bangla hall canteen and 05.10.2019 at any time

after 10 p.m. in the guest house of Shere Bangla

hall. This means mathematically that the period of

1st meeting was 6 PM to 11.59 PM on 04.10.19 that

is within not exceeding 6 hours and 2 nd meeting was

held at 10 PM to 11.59 PM on 05.10.19 that is,

within not exceeding 2 hours and in total within

6+2=8 hours (within not exceeding). Regarding this

part of pre-planning in question within the

aforesaid not exceeding 8 hours, this is the

fundamental question whether there is any iota of

evidence coming from PW 45 and PW 46 against the

instant accused petitioner Moshed Amartya Islam.

The answer is absolutely not at all as PW 45 has

admitted directly in his cross examination that “নিচ

তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে †gv‡k©`

AgZ¨© Bmjvg, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান

রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন

 126

সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে বিষয়ে

কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না)”

PW 45 has further admitted that- “গেস্টরুমের করিডোর

দিয়ে আসামী মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg,

মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৫.১০.১৯ ইং

তারিখ রাত ১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় গেস্টরুমে গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে

কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি?- না।“

PW 46 has also admitted in his cross examination

that “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨©

Bmjvg গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন

সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এর ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে

বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা

অন্য কোন ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না? – করি

নাই।”

PW 46 has further admitted that- “গেস্টরুমের করিডোর

দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত ০৫.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত ১০.০০ টার
 127

পর যে কোন সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল, বুয়েট এর গেস্টরুমে আদৌ গিয়েছিল

কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা

অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না?- না, করি নাই।“

“খসড়া মানচিত্রে পুর্বপরিকল্পনার ‘ছ’ এবং ‘জ’ স্থান দুইটি হতে আসামি

†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg এর উপস্থিতির বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও

রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরনের

ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না ? - না করি নাই”

“আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার এবং আসামির ১৬৪ ধারার

অধিনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg কর্তৃ ক

আবরার ফাহাদ কে “চড়, থাপ্পর, লাঠি দিয়ে, কনুই দিয়ে আঘাত করেছিল

কি না? –না। আপনার তদন্ত কালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার অধীনেপ্রদত্ত

বিবৃতিতে তর্কি ত মিটিং এ আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg

উপস্থিতির আছে কি না? নাই। আপনার তদন্ত কালে কোন আসামীর ১৬৪

ধারার অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে তর্কি ত মিটিং এ আসামি †gv‡k©`

AgZ¨© Bmjvg উপস্থিতির কথা নাই। ইহা সত্য কি না?- হ্যা, নাই।
 128

In addition to this, it can be mentioned for the re-

establishment of the matter in respect of the

absence of the instant accused petitioner in the said

meeting-in-question that he was not communicated

the message-in-question for which PW 46 has also

admitted in his cross examination that “ফরেনসিক

রিপোর্ট অনুসারে অত্র মামলার তর্কি ত মেসেজ মোঃ মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম লাইক, সিন, কমেন্ট ও শেয়ার করে নাই। ইহা ফরেনসিক রিপোর্ট করে

জেনেছিলেন কি না? - না জানি নাই।”

(ii) Conspiracy in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k)

Is there any iota of evidence in respect of conspiracy

(তর্কি ত ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k) coming from PW 45 and PW

46 against the instant accused petitioner Moshed

Amartya Islam?

The answer is absolutely not at all as PW 45 has

admitted directly in his cross examination that “নিচ

তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে †gv‡k©`

AgZ¨© Bmjvg,মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান

 129

রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন

সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে বিষয়ে

কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না)”

PW 46 has also admitted in his cross examination

that “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨©

Bmjvg গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কন

সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এর ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে

বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা

অন্য কোন ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না ? – করি

নাই।”

“খসড়া মানচিত্রে পুর্বপরিকল্পনার ‘ছ’ এবং ‘জ’ স্থান দুইটি হতে আসামি

†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg এর উপস্থিতির বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও

রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরনের

ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না ? - না করি নাই”

 130

In addition to this it can be mentioned for the re-

establishment of the matter in respect of the

absence of the instant accused petitioner in the said

meeting in question, he was not communicated the

message in question for which PW 46 has also

admitted in his cross examination that “ফরেনসিক

রিপোর্ট অনুসারে অত্র মামলার তর্কি ত মেসেজ মোঃ মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম লাইক, সিন, কমেন্ট ও শেয়ার করে নাই। ইহা ফরেনসিক রিপোর্ট করে

জেনেছিলেন কি না ? - না জানি, নাই।”

(iii) Aid in question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv)

Is there any iota of evidence in respect of Aid in

question(তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv) coming from PW 45

and PW 46 together against the instant accused

petitioner Moshed Amartya Islam?

The answer is absolutely not at all as PW 46 has

admittedin his cross examination that “জব্দকৃ ত তর্কি ত

বস্তুসমূহ হতে…ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন

ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছিলেন কিনা? না করি নাই”

 131

From the plain reading of this evidence, it is clear

that Moshed Amartya Islam has not entered into

the places of occurrence and aided any of the

accused in committing the alleged offence in

question.

(iv) Common intention in question (তর্কি ত Awfbœ

AwfcÖv য়):

Is there any iota of evidence in respect of Common

intention in question (তর্কি ত Awfbœ AwfcÖv য়)

coming from PW 45 and PW 46 together against the

instant accused petitioner Moshed Amartya Islam?

The answer is absolutely not at all as PW 45 has

admitted directly in his cross examination that “নিচ

তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে †gv‡k©`

AgZ¨© Bmjvg,মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি হাসান

রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন

সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে বিষয়ে

কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না)”

 132

PW 46 has also admitted in his cross examination

that “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨©

Bmjvg গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কন

সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এর ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে

বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা

অন্য কোন ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না? – করি

নাই।”

“খসড়া মানচিত্রে পুর্বপরিকল্পনার ‘ছ’ এবং ‘জ’ স্থান দুইটি হতে আসামি

†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg এর উপস্থিতির বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও

রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরনের

ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না ? –না করি নাই”

আপনার তদন্ত কালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার অধীনেপ্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে

তর্কি ত মিটিং এ আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg উপস্থিতির

আছে কি না? নাই। আপনার তদন্ত কালে কোন আসামীর ১৬৪ ধারার
 133

অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে তর্কি ত মিটিং এ আসামি †gv‡k©` AgZ¨©

Bmjvg উপস্থিতির কথা নাই। ইহা সত্য কি না?- হ্যা, নাই।

In addition to this it can be mentioned for the re-

establishment of the matter in respect of the

absence of the instant accused petitioner in the said

meeting in question, he was not communicated the

message in question for which PW 46 has also

admitted in his cross examination that “ফরেনসিক

রিপোর্ট অনুসারে অত্র মামলার তর্কি ত মেসেজ মোঃ মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম লাইক, সিন, কমেন্ট ও শেয়ার করে নাই। ইহা ফরেনসিক রিপোর্ট করে

জেনেছিলেন কি না? - না জানি নাই।”

PW 46 has admitted in his cross examination that

“জব্দকৃ ত তর্কি ত বস্তুসমূহ হতে…ল্যাটেনট প্রিন্ট, ফু ট প্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট

বা অন্য কোন ধরনের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছিলেন কিনা? না

করি,নাই”.

From the plain reading of this evidence, it is clear

that Moshed Amartya Islam has not entered into

the places of occurrence and aided any of the

 134

accused in committing the alleged offence-in-

question.

Moreover PW 46 has admitted in his cross

examination that “আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার

এবং আসামির ১৬৪ ধারার অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম কর্তৃ ক আবরার ফাহাদকে চড়, থাপ্পর, লাঠি দিয়ে, কনুই দিয়ে

আঘাত করেছিল কিনা?- না।”

PW 46 has further admitted that “ অত্র মামলার চার্জ শিট

এর ৭ম পৃষ্ঠার উপর থেকে ৪ হতে ৭ নম্বর লাইন অনুসারে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম এর বিরুদ্ধে পিটিয়ে হত্যা করার অভিযোগ নাই । ইহা সঠিক

কিনা?-সঠিক।”

In view of the aforesaid evidence it is clear that

there is no evidence of hitting by the instant

accused petitioner means no causing injury by him,

there is no evidence of making conspiracy by the

instant accused petitioner means no evidence of in

participating in pre-planning and there is no

evidence of aiding by the instant accused petitioner

 135

means no common intension by accused instant

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam.

Analysis as to stage No- 5:

(Whether the instant accused petitioner

morshed Amartya Islam was present in the

meeting dated 04.10.2019 held at any time after 6

p.m. in the Shere Bangla Hall Canteen)

After perusal of the evidence coming through cross

examination of PW 45 and PW 46 together in

respect of first point of charges the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam was not present

in the meeting held on 04.10.2019 in the canteen as

PW 45 has admitted that 

(i) “তর্কি ত খসড়া মানচিত্রে আসামী মোঃমোর্শেদ ওরফে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদী হাসান রাসেল গণের

অবস্থান চিহ্নিত করেছিলেন কি না? -না, করি নাই।”

(ii) “আসামী মোঃ মোর্শেদ ওরফে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম, মেফতাহুল

ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদী হাসান রাসেলগনদের তর্কি ত ঘটনার শুরুর

 136

পূর্বেকার অবস্থান, তর্কি ত ঘটনা কালীন সময়ের অবস্থান এবং তর্কি ত

ঘটনার উত্তর কালীন সময় জানার জন্য আবেদন করেছিলেন কি না?

আবেদন করা হয় নাই।”

(iii) “নিচ তালার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামি মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে

†gv‡k©` AgZ¨© Bmjvg,মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি

হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৪.১০.২০১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে

কোন সময় শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সে

বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড জব্দ করেছেন কি ? না”

In addition to these, PW 46 has admitted in his

cross examination that “নিচ তলার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ

অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত ০৪.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে

কোন সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এর ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না

সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা

অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কিনা ?- না, করি

নাই। তর্কিত ঘটনার বিষয়ে শেরে বাংলা হলের ক্যান্টিন হতে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

ইসলাম এর উপস্থিতির প্রমাণ হিসেবে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট,

ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্ট প্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ

করেছেন কি না ?- না, করি নাই।”

 137

From the plain reading of the aforesaid evidence

adduced by PW 45 and 46 it is absolutely clear that

the instant accused petitioner had not entered into

the Canteen and that means that he did not

participate in the meeting held on 04.10.2019 at

any time after 6:00 p.m. in the canteen. This is

mentionable that PW 21 has admitted in his cross

examination that “শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনের করিডোর

সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায় ছিল কি না? - আমার যতটু কু মনে হয় ছিল।”

So, this is clear that who actually entered in to the

said canteen shall be known from the video record

of the CC camera as the corridor of the Canteen was

covered by CC Camera. 

PW 46 has further admitted in his cross

examination that 

(i) “হলের সকল সিসিক্যামেরা ইংরেজি ০৬.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত

০৮.০৫ ঘটিকা হতে ০৭.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত ০২.৩০ ঘটিকা পর্যন্ত

সময়ের সমগ্র ভিডিও এই মামলায় জব্দ করা হয়েছে কিনা?-সিআইডির

মাধ্যমে জব্দ করা হয়েছে। আমি জব্দ করেছি।”

The said PW 46 has also admitted that

 138

(ii) “নিচ তলার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত

০৪.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় বুয়েটের শেরে

বাংলা হল এর ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও

রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের

ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না?- না, করি নাই। তর্কি ত ঘটনার

বিষয়ে শেরে বাংলা হলের ক্যান্টিন হতে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম

এর উপস্থিতির প্রমাণ হিসেবে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট,

ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ

করেছেন কি না ?- না, করি নাই।”

The aforesaid evidence of PW 46 has established

that though PW 46 has admitted that all video

record from 8.05 PM on 06.10.2019 to 2.30 AM on

07.10.2019 has been seized by him but he has not

got any video record in respect of entrance of

accused Morshed Amartya Islam into the said

Canteen i.e. the charge of entering into the canteen

and participation in the canteen meeting in

question is not proved in any means for which PW

46 has further admitted that “আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর

১৬১ ধারার অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে তর্কি ত মিটিংয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম

এর উপস্থিতির কথা আছে কি না?- নাই।”

 139

In view of the aforesaid evidence and analysis there

is no existence of the video record, latent print,

patent paint, foot print or any other physical

evidence in respect of entering into the Canteen of

the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam which means no entrance in the said canteen

of him and the same also means no participation in

the canteen meeting-in-question.

In support of this contention of reality, the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morrshed Amartya Islam was

present in Rajshahi which is very much clear from

his submitted written 342 statement based on the

government or public documents. 

This is mentionable that the instant accused

petitioner Mr. Morrshed Amartya Islam was in

Rajshahi on 04.10.2019 and onward and this must

be clear and proved if the submitted public

documents in respect of living of the instant

accused Morrshed Amartya Islam in Rajshahi are

investigated either by any national or international

 140

investigative agencies, the fact of living on

04.10.2019 in Rajshahi area shall be proved.

Analysis as to stage No- 6:

(Whether the instant accused petitioner

morshed Amartya Islam was present in the

meeting dated 05.10.2019 at any time after 10 PM

in the guest house of Shere Bangla Hall):

After perusal of the evidence coming through cross

examination of PW 45 and PW 46 together it is

crystal clear that the instant accused petitioner

Morshed Amartya Islam has not entered into the

guest house-in-question of Shere Bangla Hall,

BUET as PW 46 has directly admitted that “খসড়া

মানচিত্র অনুসারে বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এ কোন গেস্টহাউস আছে কি

না? গেস্টহাউজ নাই, গেস্টরুম আছে।”

This establishes that there is no existence of Guest

House which means that there was no meeting held

in the guest house-in-question as has been

mentioned in the charges framed on 15.09.2020.

 141

If it is considered that the words ‘guest house’ have

been written wrongly or mistakenly in the charge

framing form and the charged framing order dated

15.09.2020, then it is necessary to see whether the

instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam

has entered into the guest room-in-question?

The answer is absolutely not at all.

That means the instant accused petitioner Morshed

Amartya Islam has not entered into the guest room

at any time after 10 PM for the following reasons.

(i) PW 22 has admitted in his cross

examination that “অতিথি কক্ষের করিডর সিসি

ক্যামেরার আওতায় ছিল কি না?-হ্যাঁ।”

(ii) PW 45 has further admitted that- “গেস্টরুমের

করিডোর দিয়ে আসামী মোঃ †gv‡k©` ওরফে †gv‡k©`

AgZ¨© Bmjvg, মেফতাহুল ইসলাম জিয়ন এবং মেহেদি

হাসান রাসেলগন গত ০৫.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত ১০.০০ টার পর যে

কোন সময় গেস্টরুমে গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড

জব্দ করেছেন কি?- না।“

 142

(iii) PW 46 has admitted that- “গেস্টরুমের করিডোর

দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত ০৫.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখ রাত

১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল, বুয়েট এর

গেস্টরুমে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড ,

ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল

এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না?- না, করি নাই।

So, this is more clear that who actually entered into

the said guest room-in-question shall be known

from the video record of the CC camera by which

the corridor of the guest house was covered. 

PW 46 has further admitted in his cross

examination that 

(i) “হলের সকল সিসি ক্যামেরা ইংরেজি ০৬.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত

০৮.০৫ ঘটিকা হতে ০৭.১০.২০১৯ তারিখ রাত ০২.৩০ ঘটিকা পর্যন্ত

সময়ের সমগ্র ভিডিও এই মামলায় জব্দ করা হয়েছে কি না?-সিআইডির

মাধ্যমে জব্দ করা হয়েছে। আমি জব্দ করেছি।”

The said PW 46 has also admitted that-

 143

(ii) “নিচ তলার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত ০৪.১০.১৯ ইং

তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল এর ক্যান্টিনে

আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড , ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট,

প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না ?-না,

করি নাই।

The aforesaid evidence of PW 46 has established

through his admission in cross examination that all

video record from 8.05 PM on 06.10.2019 to 2.30

AM on 07.10.2019 has been seized by him but he

has not got any video record in respect of entrance

of the instant accused petitioner Morshed Amartya

Islam into the said guest room and that means that

the charge of entering into the guest room and

participation in the guest room meeting-in-question

are not proved in any means for which PW 46 has

further admitted that “আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার

অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে তর্কি ত মিটিংয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম এর

উপস্থিতির কথা আছে কিনা?- নাই।”

PW 46 has further admitted that “...আপনার তদন্তকালেকোন

আসামীর ১৬৪ ধারার অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে তর্কি ত মিটিং এ আসামী মোর্শেদ

অমর্ত্য ইসলাম এর উপস্থিতির কথা নাই । ইহা সত্য কি না? – হ্যা, নাই। ।”
 144

In view of the aforementioned evidence, it is

transparent that there is no existence of the video

record, latent print, patent paint, foot print or any

other physical evidence in respect of entering into

the guest room-in-question which also means no

participation of the instant accused petitioner

Moeshed Amartya Islam in the said guest room

meeting-in-question.

In support of this contention of reality, the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morrshed Amartya Islam was

present in Rajshahi which is very much clear from

his submitted written 342 statements based on the

submitted government or public documents. 

This is mentionable that the instant accused

petitioner Mr. Morrshed Amartya Islam was in

Rajshahi on 05.10.2019 and onward and this must

be clear and proved if the submitted public

document for the reason of accused Morrshed

Amartya Islam in Rajshahi are Investigated either

by any national or international investigative

 145

agencies, the fact of living on 05.10.2019 in

Rajshahi area shall be proved.

Analysis as to stage No- 7

Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amartya Islam has committed the offence

of “চড়, থাপ্পর, লাঠি, কিল, ঘুষি মেরে, কনুই দিয়ে পিঠে, ক্রিকেট

স্ট্যাম্প, স্কিপিং রোপ দিয়ে নির্মমভাবে পিটিয়ে ৪০/৫০টি মারাত্মক গুরুতর

রক্তাক্ত জখমসহ হত্যা করা।”

The answer is absolutely not at all.

The fundamental reasons are given below. 

PW-46 the charge sheet submitting investigating

officer of this case has admitted in his cross

examination that-

(i) “আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার এবং আসামির ১৬৪

ধারার অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম কর্তৃ ক

আবরার ফাহাদকে চড়, থাপ্পর, লাঠি দিয়ে, কনুই দিয়ে আঘাত করেছিল কি

না?-না।”

(ii) PW 46 has further admitted that “ অত্র মামলার

চার্জ শিট এর ৭ম পৃষ্ঠার উপর থেকে ৪ হতে ৭ নম্বর লাইন অনুসারে মোর্শেদ
 146

অমর্ত্য ইসলাম এর বিরুদ্ধে পিটিয়ে হত্যা করার অভিযোগ নাই । ইহা সঠিক

কি না?-সঠিক।”

(iii) PW 46 has further admitted that জব্দকৃ ত বস্তু

সমুহ হতে কোন ভিডিও-রেকর্ড ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট

বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না?-না, করি নাই।

Points for acquittal:

(i) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

meetings of of preplanning-in-question of dated

04.010.2019 and 05.10.2019 (তর্কি ত পূর্ব-পরিকল্পনা…) under

the adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not at all because of the

following evidence:

The said PW 46 has also admitted that-

 147

(1) PW 46 has admitted in his cross examination that

“নিচ তলার বারান্দা দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত ০৪.১০.১৯

ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ০৬.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় বুয়েটের শেরে বাংলা হল

এর ক্যান্টিনে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে কোন ভিডিও রেকর্ড ,

ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল

এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না?-না, করি নাই। This means the

instant accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya

Islam had not entered into the Canteen at all.

(2) PW 46 has admitted in his cross examination that

“গেস্টরুমের করিডোর দিয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম গত

০৫.১০.১৯ ইং তারিখে সন্ধ্যা ১০.০০ টার পর যে কোন সময় শেরে বাংলা

হল বুয়েট এর গেস্টরুমে আদৌ গিয়েছিল কি না সেই বিষয়ে ভিডিও রেকর্ড ,

ল্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট, ফু টপ্রিন্ট, প্যাটেন্টপ্রিন্ট বা অন্য কোন ধরণের ফিজিক্যাল

এভিডেন্স জব্দ করেছেন কি না?-না, করি নাই। This means the

instant accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya

Islam had not entered into the Guest Room at all.

(3) PW 21 has admitted in his cross examination that

“শেরে বাংলা হল বুয়েটের ক্যান্টিনের করিডোর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায়

ছিল কি না?- আমার যতটু কু মনে হয় ছিল।” and PW 22 has

admitted in his cross examination that “ অতিথি কক্ষের

করিডর সিসি ক্যামেরার আওতায় ছিল কি না?-হ্যাঁ।” This means

 148

that no video record is exhibited by the

prosecution in respect of entering into and

exiting from either Canteen or Guest Room of

Sher e Bangla Hall, BUET.

(4) PW 46 has admitted in his cross examination that

“আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে

তর্কি ত মিটিংয়ে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম এর উপস্থিতির কথা আছে

কিনা?- নাই।” This makes it more clear the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya Islam

had not entered into the Canteen at all.

(ii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of conspiracy-in-question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡k) of

dated 04.010.2019 and 05.10.2019 by each other

under the adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not at all as the instant

accused petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid

evidence (Point No. i for acquittal) had not

entered into either the Canteen or Guest Room i.e.

he was not present either in the Canteen meeting or

 149

in the guest room meeting. Moreover, according to

the 342 sttaements in writing based on the

unrebutted public documents the living of the

instant accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya

Islam in Rajshahi City area has been established.

(iii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of aid-in-question (তর্কি ত ci¯úi mnvqZv) of dated

04.010.2019 and 05.10.2019 by each other under

the adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not at all as the

instant accused petitioner in accordance with

the aforesaid evidence (Point No. i for

acquittal) had not entered into either the

Canteen or Guest Room i.e. he was not present

either in the Canteen meeting or in the guest

room meeting. Moreover, according to the 342

sttaements in writing based on the unrebutted

public documents the living of the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya Islam

in Rajshahi City area has been established.

 150

(iv) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of common intention-in-question (তর্কি ত Awfbœ

AwfcÖv য়) of dated 04.010.2019 and 05.10.2019 by

each otherunder the adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not at all as the

instant accused petitioner in accordance with

the aforesaid evidence (Point No. i for

acquittal) had not entered into either the

Canteen or Guest Room i.e. he was not present

either in the Canteen meeting or in the guest

room meeting. Moreover, according to the 342

sttaements in writing based on the unrebutted

public documents the living of the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya Islam

in Rajshahi City area has been established.

(v) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of canteen meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত K¨vw›U‡b `dvq

 151

`dvq wgwUs) of dated 04.010.2019 under the

adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not at all as the

instant accused petitioner in accordance with

the aforesaid evidence (Point No. i for

acquittal) had not entered into either the

Canteen or Guest Room i.e. he was not present

either in the Canteen meeting or in the guest

room meeting. Moreover, according to the 342

sttaements in writing based on the unrebutted

public documents the living of the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya Islam

in Rajshahi City area has been established.

(vi) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of Guest House meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত †M÷

nvD‡R তর্কি ত `dvq `dvq wgwUs) of dated 05.10.2019

under the adduced evidence?

 152

The answer is absolutely not at all as there was

and is no existence of †M÷ nvD‡R as PW-46 has

admitted in his cross examination that “খসড়া মানচিত্র

অনুসারে বুয়েটের শেরেবাংলা হলে কোন গেস্ট হাউজ আছে কি না? – গেস্ট হাউজ

নাই, গেস্ট রুম আছে।‘’

And hence the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amartya Islam is not involved in the

charge of Guest House meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত

†M÷ nvD‡R তর্কি ত `dvq `dvq wgwUs) of dated 05.10.2019

(vii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of canteen meetings-in-question (তর্কি ত †M÷রুমে তর্কি ত `dvq

`dvq wgwUs) of dated 05.010.2019?

The answer is absolutely not at all as the

instant accused petitioner in accordance with

the aforesaid evidence (Point No. i for

acquittal) had not entered into either the

Canteen or Guest Room i.e. he was not present

either in the Canteen meeting or in the guest

room meeting. Moreover, according to the 342

sttaements in writing dated 14.03.2021 based

 153

on the unrebutted public documents the living

of the instant accused petitioner Mr. Morshed

Amartya Islam in Rajshahi City area has been

established.

(viii) Whether the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amortaya Islam is involved in the charge

of weMZ 06/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 20: 05 NwUKv nB‡Z

07/10/2019 wLªóvã ZvwiL mgq 02:30 NwUKvi g‡a¨ †h †Kvb mgq

XvKv gnvbMixi PKevRvi g‡Wj _vbvaxb ey‡qU Gi †k‡i evsjv

AvevwmK nj রুম bs 2011 Ges 2005 Gi wfZi AÎ gvgjvi wfKwUg

ey‡q‡Ui †k‡ievsjv AvevwmK n‡ji QvÎ Aveivi dvnv` ivweŸi cÖwZ

Avcbviv D‡ËwRZ n‡q µgvMZfv‡e Po, _vài, jvw_, wKj, Nywl †g‡i,

KzbB w`‡q wc‡V, wµ‡KU ó¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs †ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôzi

fv‡e wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK ¸iæZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib -in-

question under the adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not at all as PW-46 the

charge sheet submitting investigating officer of this

case has admitted in his cross examination that-

(1) “আপনার তদন্তকালে কোন সাক্ষীর ১৬১ ধারার এবং আসামির ১৬৪ ধারার

অধীনে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিতে আসামী মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম কর্তৃ ক আবরার ফাহাদকে

চড়, থাপ্পর, লাঠি দিয়ে, কনুই দিয়ে আঘাত করেছিল কি না?-না।”

 154

(2) PW 46 has further admitted that “অত্র মামলার চার্জ শিট

এর ৭ম পৃষ্ঠার উপর থেকে ৪ হতে ৭ নম্বর লাইন অনুসারে মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম এর

বিরুদ্ধে পিটিয়ে হত্যা করার অভিযোগ নাই । ইহা সঠিক কি না?-সঠিক।”

(ix) Whether the confessions confessing co-

accused are evidence against the instant

accused petitioner?

Answer is absolutely not at all because of the

following law:

“Confession of a co-accused-it does not

indeed come within the definition of ‘evidence’

as contained in section 3 of the Evidence Act. It

is not required to be given on oath, nor in the

presence of the accused, and it cannot be

tested by cross-examination.” [Ref. Lutfun Nahar

Begum Vs the State 27 DLR (AD) 29 Para-7 and also in 16

BLC (HCD) 310 and 14 BLD (HCD) 477]

(x) Whether the confessions of confessing co-

accused can be used without independent

corroborative evidence against the instant

 155

accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amortaya

Islamunder the adduced evidenec?

Answer is absolutely not at all because of the

following law:

“Confession of an accused cannot be treated as

substantive evidence against another accused

but that it can only be used to lend assurance

to other evidenec.” [Ref. Lutfun Nahar Begum Vs the

State 27 DLR (AD) 29 Para-7 and also in 16 BLC (HCD) 310,

44 DLR (AD) 10, 3 BLC (AD) 53 and 14 BLD (HCD) 477]

(xi) Whether any physical evidence (foot print,

latent print, patent print and etc.) or any

video recordhas been seized from the inside of

the said 6 (six) places of occurrence and ‘ ছ’ ও

‘জ’ two places-in-question of the draft map for

the proof of the presence of instant accused

petitioner Mr. Morshed Amortaya Islam under

the adduced evidenec?

The answer is absolutely not in accordance

with the evidence adduced by prosecution

 156

witness No. 46 of this case. This is

mentionable that absence of the exixtence of

the latent print, patent prints, foot print

and any other physical evidence means the

absence of the instant accused petitioner

inside of the said 6 (six) places of occurrence

and ‘ছ’ ও ‘জ’ two places-in-question of the draft

map which means the innocence of the instant

accused petitioner.

(xii) Whether the plea of alibi of the instant accused

petitioner based on the annexed and

submitted documents submitted under the

authority of section 342 has been discarded by

the prosecution or can be ignored by the

Tribunal?

The answer is that the matter of plea of alibi of

the instant accused petitioner based on the

annexed and submitted documents submitted

under the authority of section 342 has not

been discarded by the prosecution after the

submission of the same and getting sufficient

 157

time and opportunity and the same cannot be

ignored by this tribunal for the following

laws:

(1) In the instant case convict Ashraf Ali and

Ataur Rahman at the time of examination

under section 342 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure made statement in support of

their innocence and also as to their

respective confessional statement, but the

learned Druta Bichar Tribunal did not at

all take notice of those and did not

consider the same with reference to the

evidence on record. The learned Tribunal

is not justified in ignoring the statements

of the said accused persons recorded

under section 342 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and by such non-consideration

the merit of the case had been materially

affected. [Ref. The State vs Ashraf Ali

and Others 1 LNJ (2012) 371 Para-79]

(2) The learned Judges of the High Court Division

failed to appreciate this statement under S.342

 158

Cr.PC. The learned Judges of the High Court

Division failed to appreciate this statement

under S.342 and observed that written

statement under this section is not encouraged

by court nor is contemplated in law. With

respect, this is not the correct view of law. Under

S.342 Cr.PC the accused may give any

explanation verbally or in writing with or without

any supporting document to controvert the

evidence recorded against him and the court

must consider the explanation but what weight

is to be given to it is entirely up to the court. A

statement under this section is not evidence

within the meaning of S.3, Evidence Act, but the

court will consider the statement, along with the

evidence and circumstances, and if the

statement of the accused gets support from the

evidence on record, the court must give due

weight thereto(underlined for emphasis). [Ref

Shah Alam & ors Vs. State 1990 BLD (AD) 25

para- 24]

(xiii) Whether the one word name ‘Morshed,’

the two words name ‘Md. Morshed’ and

three words name ‘Morshed Amortaya

 159

Islam’ creates any doubt in respect of

specifically evidentiating a single person’s

name i.e. the instant accused petitioner

under the adduced evidenec?

The answer is definitely ‘yes’ that is, the

three names signify three persons or more

than 1(one) persons because of the following

legal evidenec:

According to the SSC certificate submitted

with the 342 statement in writing, the name

of the instant accused petitioner is Morshed

Amartya Islam and one word name

‘Morshed,’ the two words name ‘Md.

Morshed’ are not the names of the

accused Morshed Amartya Islam. Here is a

clear doubt as to the inclusion of this

accused in the name of either ‘Morshed,’ or

‘Md. Morshed’ as the instant accused’s

name according to his SSC Certificate is

Morshed Amartya Islam and his nick name

is Pink as PW-21 has admitted ( মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য

 160

ইসলাম আপনার কাছের বন্ধু হওয়ায় তার ডাক নাম পিংক জানতেন কি

না? – হ্যাঁ ।) that the nick name of the accused

Morshed Amartya Islam is Pink and PW-

46 has admitted that মূল নামের পরে ডাক নামের

আগে ওরফে চিহ্ন ব্যবহার হয়। and according to this,

the full name becomes Morshed Amartya

Islam @ Pink.

The investigating officer i.e. PW-45 and PW-

46 and all other PWs have not adduced any

evidence that the nick name of Morshed

Amartya Islam is ‘Morshed,’ or ‘Md.

Morshed’ and hence the instant accused

petitioner Morshed Amartya Islam @ Pink

is not Morshed Amartya Islam @

‘Morshed,’ @ ‘Md. Morshed’. Moreover, PW-

46 has admitted that he has not got the

information of how many students named

‘Morshed’ and ‘Md. Morshed’ study in

BUET and stays in Shere Bangla Hall and

this creates a serious doubt as to identifying

Morshed’ or ‘Md. Morshed’ as their total

number in BUET or Shere Bangla Hall is

unknown but Morshed Amartya Islam is

 161

known i.e. only 1 (one). From this

unknown numbers only 1 (one) has been

picked without any intelligence as well as

evidence. This is also mentionable that the

first information (FI)) and the first

information report (FIR) do contain the

name of the accused Md. Morshed and his

age is mentioned therein 20 (twenty years)

and PW-46 has admitted that he did not

know how many students named as Md.

Morshed study in the BUET, in the 17th

Batch and even in the Mechanical

Department of BUET and there is no

evidence for which one can say that the said

Md. Morshed is this Morshed Amartya

Islam @ Pink.

Regarding this contention, this is also

notable that the statement given by PW-46

(মোঃ মোর্শেদ, মোর্শেদ অমর্ত্য ইসলাম ও অন্য একজন আসামির

নামের ক্ষেত্রে মোর্শেদ নামটির বানান একই কি না? হ্যাঁ । লেখা আছে ।)

creates doubt as to the identification of the

instant accused petitioner.

 162

This aforesaid doubtful evidence has created

absolute doubt in respect of the inclusion of

the instant accused petitioner Mr. Morshed

Amartya Islam @ Pink in place of FI and

FIR named accused Md. Morshed.

(xiv) Whether the age of the instant accused

petitioner Mr. Morshed Amortaya Islam is

correctly mentioned by the investigating officer

and accordingly whether the incorrect age

creates any doubt for placing him as the

instant accused petitioner under the adduced

evidenec?

The police report (charge sheet) submitting

investigating officer of this case (PW-46) has

given the wrong age of the instant accused

petitioner. He has given the age of 20 years of

the instant accused petitioner whereas his age

according to his SSC Certifiacte is 18 years 11

months but in the in the charge sheet his age

has been mentioned as 20 years which

 163

indicates that the investigating officer (PW-46)

has not investigated properly the age of the

instant accused petitioner by collecting the

SSC document and again another point is very

important and this aforesaid doubtful evidence

has created absolute doubt in respect of the

inclusion of the instant accused petitioner Mr.

Morshed Amartya Islam @ Pink.

(xv) Whether the investigation to the extent of the

instant accused petitioner Mr. Morshed

Amartya Islam is defective and doubtful under

the adduced evidence?

The investigation to the extent of the instant

accused petitioner Mr. Morshed Amartya

Islam is absolutely defective and doubtful

under the adduced evidence as the first

information (FI)) and the first information

report (FIR) do contain the name of the

accused Md. Morshed and his age is

mentioned therein 20 (twenty years) and

PW-46 has admitted that he did not know

 164

how many students named as Md. Morshed

study in the BUET, in the 17th Batch and

even in the Mechanical Department of BUET

and there is no evidence for which one can

say that the said Md. Morshed is this

Morshed Amartya Islam @ Pink.

(xvi) Whether the first information, charge sheet,

161 statements are substantive evidence?

The answer is absolutely not at all because of

the following laws:

(1) It is well settled that FIR is not a

substantive piece of evidence.(underlined for

emphasis), [Ref. Sohel (Md.) Vs. The State, 10

MLR (2005) (HC) 239, Abdus Subhan Vs. The

State, 15 BLD (HCD) 281,

(2) Recording statement under Section

161, Cr.P.C. or while filing charge-

sheet is not a substantive evidence. It is

settled law that the contents in the First

Information Report or the statement

 165

recorded under Section 161, CrPC are not

substantive evidence. [Ref. The Oriental

Insurance Company ... vs Sharafat And Others on 24

August, 2017 Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96587712/]

(3) The FIR, charge-sheet or other police

papers are not substantive evidence.[

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Raghunath

Srichandan And Ors. on 27 April, 2005, Equivalent

citations: III (2006) ACC 622, 101 (2006) CLT 409,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1715926/]

(xvii) Whether the seized video is admissible as

evidence in the case? Ans. Not at all.

“Regarding the admission of digital or

electronic evidence, as it appears the the

party seeking to admit any statement or

admission of person recorded in a

compact disk or video cassette or any

interview of conducted by any television

channel relating to a relevant a fact or

facts in issue, must also produce the

original compact disc or video cassette

 166

or the programmee published in the

television channel with the certificate of

the producer of the programmee

certitfying the date and place of the

record of the programmee and further

the signature of the producer in the

certificate has also to both electronic

be proved. In the present appeals, these

requirements have not been met-the

electronic evidence produced by the

prosecution in this case can not be used.

[Ref. 18 BLT (AD) 1 Para-317]

In the present case, having no

certificate from the authority of BUET

(PW-46 has admitted that জব্দকৃ ত ভিডিও

এর বিষয়ে হল কত্ত্রিপক্ষ বা বুয়েট কত্ত্রিপক্ষের নিকট হতে

কোন লিখিত প্রত্যয়ন গ্রহন করেছিলেন কি না? না) the

video-in-question is not admissible in

evidence and hence it has no evidenetiary

value.
 167

(xviii) Whether the prosecution has been able to

prove the charges beyond any shadow of

reasonable doubt?

The answer is absolutely not at all for

the following reasons:

(1) That the prosecution has not been able to

prove that the FI and FIR named accused

Md. Morshed is this Morshed Amartya

Islam @ Pink and even his acutual age

has not been mentioned in the police

report.

(2) That the prosecution has not been able to

prove that this Morshed Amartya Islam @

Pink was present in the meetings in

question.

(3) That the prosecution has not been able to

prove that this Morshed Amartya Islam @

Pink was involved in committing the

offence of aid-in-question.
 168

(4) That the prosecution has not been able to

prove that this Morshed Amartya Islam @

Pink has caused any injury upon the body

of the deceased in any way at any time.

This is notable that having aforesaid

elements of charges, there is no also

element of any sort of common-intention.

(xix) Whether the instant accused petitioner

Mr. Morshed Amartya Islam alias Pink

is entitled to be acquitted from the

charges made aganst him?

ÓGKbR‡iÓ
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjv‡gi weiæ‡× MwVZ PvR© I Lvjv‡mi
Kvi‡Yi mswÿß Dc¯’vcb:-

PvR© (MwVZ) Lvjv‡mi KviY

1. c~e© cwiKwíZfv‡e 04/10/2019 DËi: †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg

wLª: Zvwi‡L K¨vw›U‡b Ges ZwK©Z c~e©-cwiKíbvq A_©¨vr
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L 04/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL K¨vw›U‡b
†M÷nvD‡R wgwUs K‡ib Ges 05/10/2019 wLª: ZvwiL †M÷
(A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg nvD‡R (ev †M÷iæ‡g) †Kv‡bv
ZwK©Z c~e©-cwiKíbvq Dcw¯’Z wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv|
wQ‡jv wKbv? A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z c~e©-cwiKíbvq Dcw¯’Z
wQ‡jv bv|
169

সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:

(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

Gwf‡WÝ- Ó Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j
†Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi Aax‡b
cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi K_v Av‡Q wKbv- bvB|

Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j †Kvb Avmvgxi 164

avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z
ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi K_v
bvB Bnv mZ¨ wKbv- nu¨v, bvB|

(L) Lmov gvbwP‡Î ZwK©Z

c‚e©cwiKíbvi ÔQÕ I ÔRÕ ¯’vb
`zwU n‡Z †gv†k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI-
‡iKiW, j¨v†U›U wcÖ›U, dzU wcÖ›U,
c¨v†U›U wcÖ›U ev wdwRK¨vj
Bwf†WÝ Rã K†iwQ‡jb wK bv ? bv
Kwi bvB| (wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv
†_‡K)

(M) wcWvweøI-21 Zvi Revbe›`x‡Z

e‡j †h,- †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg @
wcsK 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL evox
†_‡K G‡mwQj|

(N) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx

†gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges
†g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b Av‡`Š
wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb
wfwWI †iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?-
bv (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(O) ‡M÷ iæ‡gi Kwi‡Wvi w`‡q

Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb
Ges †g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui ‡M÷ iæ‡g Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj
wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI
 170

†iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?- bv

(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(P) d‡ibwmK wi‡cvU© Abymv‡i AÎ

gvgjvi ZwK©Z †ম‡mR Avmvgx
†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg jvBK, wmb,
K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB|

(Q) †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †h

04/10/2019 I 05/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
ivRkvnx‡Z wQ‡jv Zvnv Zvi 342
avivi mwnZ `vwLjK…Z
unrebutted Public documents
‡_‡KI cÖgvwbZ|

2. ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m 04/10/19 wLª: DËi: †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg

ZvwiL- K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/19
wLª Zvwi‡L †M÷nvD‡R wgwUs
K‡ib|
A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m
Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv wK bv?
ZwK©Z c~e©-cwiKíbvq A_©¨vr
04/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL K¨vw›U‡b
Ges 05/10/2019 wLª: ZvwiL †M÷
nvD‡R (ev †M÷iæ‡g) †Kv‡bv
wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv|
A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z ci¯úi †hvMmvR‡m
Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv|

সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:

(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

Gwf‡WÝ- Ó Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j
†Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi Aax‡b
cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi K_v Av‡Q wKbv- bvB|

Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j †Kvb Avmvgxi 164

avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z
ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi K_v
bvB Bnv mZ¨ wKbv- nu¨v, bvB|

(L) Lmov gvbwP‡Î ZwK©Z

c‚e©cwiKíbvi ÔQÕ I ÔRÕ ¯’vb
`zwU n‡Z †gv†k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI-
‡iKiW, j¨v†U›U wcÖ›U, dzU wcÖ›U,
c¨v†U›U wcÖ›U ev wdwRK¨vj
Bwf†WÝ Rã K†iwQ‡jb wK bv ? bv
Kwi bvB| (wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv
†_‡K)
 171

(M) wcWvweøI-21 Zvi Revbe›`x‡Z

e‡j †h,- †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg @
wcsK 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL evox
†_‡K G‡mwQj|

(N) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx

†gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges
†g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b Av‡`Š
wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb
wfwWI †iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?-
bv (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(O) ‡M÷ iæ‡gi Kwi‡Wvi w`‡q

Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb
Ges †g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui ‡M÷ iæ‡g Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj
wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI
†iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?- bv
(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(P) d‡ibwmK wi‡cvU© Abymv‡i AÎ

gvgjvi ZwK©Z †ম‡mR Avmvgx
†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg jvBK, wmb,
K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB|

(Q) †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †h

04/10/2019 I 05/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
ivRkvnx‡Z wQ‡jv Zvnv Zvi 342
avivi mwnZ `vwLjK…Z
unrebutted Public documents
‡_‡KI cÖgvwbZ|

3. ci¯úi mnvqZvq 04/10/19 wLª: DËi: †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg

ZvwiL- K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/19
wLª Zvwi‡L †M÷nvD‡R wgwUs
K‡ib|
A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z ci¯úi mnvqZv র স্থান দুইটিতে
Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv wK bv?
ZwK©Z ci¯úi mnvqZv র স্থান দুইটিতে
A_©¨vr 04/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/2019 wLª:
ZvwiL †M÷ nvD‡R (ev †M÷iæ‡g)
†Kv‡bv wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv
bv| A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z ci¯úi mnvqZv র স্থান দুইটিতে
Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv|
172

সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:

(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

Gwf‡WÝ- Ó Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j
†Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi Aax‡b
cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi K_v Av‡Q wKbv- bvB|

Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j †Kvb Avmvgxi 164

avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z
ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi K_v
bvB Bnv mZ¨ wKbv- nu¨v, bvB|

(L) Lmov gvbwP‡Î ZwK©Z

c‚e©cwiKíbvi ÔQÕ I ÔRÕ ¯’vb
`zwU n‡Z †gv†k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI-
‡iKiW, j¨v†U›U wcÖ›U, dzU wcÖ›U,
c¨v†U›U wcÖ›U ev wdwRK¨vj
Bwf†WÝ Rã K†iwQ‡jb wK bv ? bv
Kwi bvB| (wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv
†_‡K)

(M) wcWvweøI-21 Zvi Revbe›`x‡Z

e‡j †h,- †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg @
wcsK 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL evox
†_‡K G‡mwQj|

(N) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx

†gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges
†g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b Av‡`Š
wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb
wfwWI †iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?-
bv (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(O) ‡M÷ iæ‡gi Kwi‡Wvi w`‡q

Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb
Ges †g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui ‡M÷ iæ‡g Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj
wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI
†iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?- bv
 173

(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(P) d‡ibwmK wi‡cvU© Abymv‡i AÎ

gvgjvi ZwK©Z †ম‡mR Avmvgx
†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg jvBK, wmb,
K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB|

(Q) †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †h

04/10/2019 I 05/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
ivRkvnx‡Z wQ‡jv Zvnv Zvi 342
avivi mwnZ `vwLjK…Z
unrebutted Public documents
‡_‡KI cÖgvwbZ|

4. Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q 04/10/19 wLª: DËi: †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg

ZvwiL- K¨vw›U‡b Ges 05/10/19
wLª Zvwi‡L †M÷nvD‡R wgwUs
K‡ib|
A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q জড়িত
wQ‡jv wK bv?
ZwK©Z Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q A_©¨vr
04/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL K¨vw›U‡b
Ges 05/10/2019 wLª: ZvwiL †M÷
nvD‡R (ev †M÷iæ‡g) †Kv‡bv
wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv|
A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
ZwK©Z Awfbœ AwfcÖv‡q জড়িত
wQ‡jv bv|

সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:

(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

Gwf‡WÝ- Ó Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j
†Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi Aax‡b
cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi K_v Av‡Q wKbv- bvB|

Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j †Kvb Avmvgxi 164

avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z
ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi K_v
bvB Bnv mZ¨ wKbv- nu¨v, bvB|

(L) Lmov gvbwP‡Î ZwK©Z

c‚e©cwiKíbvi ÔQÕ I ÔRÕ ¯’vb
`zwU n‡Z †gv†k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI-
‡iKiW, j¨v†U›U wcÖ›U, dzU wcÖ›U,
c¨v†U›U wcÖ›U ev wdwRK¨vj
Bwf†WÝ Rã K†iwQ‡jb wK bv ? bv
Kwi bvB| (wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv
†_‡K)
 174
5. weMZ 04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L
mܨv 6.00 Uvi ci †_‡K
†h‡Kv‡bv mgq evsjv‡`k
cÖ‡KŠkj wek¦we`¨vjq (ey‡qU) Gi
†k‡i evsjv AvevwmK n‡ji
K¨vw›U‡b `dvq `dvq wgwUs Kiv
A_©¨vr-
‡gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg weMZ
(M) wcWvweøI-21 Zvi Revbe›`x‡Z
e‡j †h,- †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg @
wcsK 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL evox
†_‡K G‡mwQj|
(N) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx
†gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges
†g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b Av‡`Š
wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb
wfwWI †iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?-
bv (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
(O) ‡M÷ iæ‡gi Kwi‡Wvi w`‡q
Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb
Ges †g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui ‡M÷ iæ‡g Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj
wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI
†iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?- bv
(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
(P) d‡ibwmK wi‡cvU© Abymv‡i AÎ
gvgjvi ZwK©Z †ম‡mR Avmvgx
†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg jvBK, wmb,
K‡g›U I †kqvi K‡ib bvB|
(Q) †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †h
04/10/2019 I 05/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
ivRkvnx‡Z wQ‡jv Zvnv Zvi 342
avivi mwnZ `vwLjK…Z
unrebutted Public documents
‡_‡KI cÖgvwbZ|
DËit bv, ‡gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
weMZ 04/10/2019 wLªt Zvwi‡Li
K¨vw›Ub wgwUs-G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv
bv ।
সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:
(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
 175

04/10/2019 wLªt Zvwi‡Li Gwf‡WÝ- Ó Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j

K¨vw›Ub wgwUs-G Dcw¯’Z †Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi Aax‡b
wQ‡jv wK bv? cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi K_v Av‡Q wKbv- bvB|

Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j †Kvb Avmvgxi 164

avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z
ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi K_v
bvB Bnv mZ¨ wKbv- nu¨v, bvB|

(L) wcWvweøI-21 Zvi Revbe›`x‡Z

e‡j †h,- †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
@ wcsK 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL evox
†_‡K G‡mwQj|

(M) Lmov gvbwP‡Î ZwK©Z

c‚e©cwiKíbvi ÔQÕ I ÔRÕ
¯’vb `zwU n‡Z †gv†k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi wel‡q †Kvb
wfwWI-‡iKiW, j¨v†U›U wcÖ›U, dzU
wcÖ›U, c¨v†U›U wcÖ›U ev
wdwRK¨vj Bwf†WÝ Rã K†iwQ‡jb
wK bv ? bv Kwi bvB| (wcWvweøI 46
Gi †Riv †_‡K)

(N) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx

†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg MZ
04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b Av‡`Š
wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q wfwWI
†iKW©, j¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U, dzU
wcÖ›U, c¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U ev Ab¨
†Kvb ai‡bi wdwRK¨vj Bwf‡WÝ Rã
K‡iwQ‡jb wK bv - bv, Kwi bvB|
ZwK©Z NUbvi wel‡q ‡M÷ iæg n‡Z
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
Dcw¯’wZi cÖgvb wnmv‡e wfwWI
†iKW©, j¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U, dzU
wcÖ›U, c¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U ev Ab¨
†Kvb ai‡bi wdwRK¨vj Gwf‡WÝ Rã
K‡i‡Qb wK bv- bv, Kwi bvB
(wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv †_‡K)

(O) bxPZjvi eviv›`v w`‡q Avmvgx

†gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb Ges
†g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
04/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L mܨv 6.00
 176
6. 5/10/19 wLª: ZvwiL ivZ 10.00 DËit bv, †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
Uvi ci †_‡K †h †Kv‡bv mgq 5/10/19 Zvwi‡L †M÷nvDR (ev
ch©šÍ GKB †M÷ nvD‡R...`dvq †M÷iæg) wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z wQ‡jv bv ।
`dvq wgwUs Kiv|
A_©¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
5/10/19 Zvwi‡L †M÷nvDR (ev
†M÷iæg) wgwUs G Dcw¯’Z
wQ‡jv wK bv?
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui K¨vw›U‡b Av‡`Š
wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q wfwWI
†iKW©© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?- bv
(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
(P) †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †h
04/10/2019 I 05/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
ivRkvnx‡Z wQ‡jv Zvnv Zvi 342
avivi mwnZ `vwLjK…Z
unrebutted Public documents
‡_‡KI cÖgvwbZ|
সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:
(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW
Gwf‡WÝ- Ó Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j
†Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi Aax‡b
cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Dcw¯’wZi K_v Av‡Q wKbv?- bvB|
Avcbvi Z`šÍKv‡j †Kvb Avmvgxi 164
avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë wee„wZ‡Z
ZwK©Z wgwUs‡q Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi K_v
bvB Bnv mZ¨ wKbv? - nu¨v, bvB|
(L) wcWvweøI-21 Zvi Revbe›`x‡Z
e‡j †h,- †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg @
wcsK 06/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL evox
†_‡K G‡mwQj|
(M) Lmov gvbwP‡Î ZwK©Z
c‚e©cwiKíbvi ÔQÕ I ÔRÕ
¯’vb `zwU n‡Z †gv†k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg Gi Dcw¯’wZi wel‡q †Kvb
wfwWI-‡iKiW, j¨v†U›U wcÖ›U, dzU
wcÖ›U, c¨v†U›U wcÖ›U ev
wdwRK¨vj Bwf†WÝ Rã K†iwQ‡jb
wK bv ? bv Kwi bvB| (wcWvweøI 46
Gi †Riv †_‡K)
177

(N) wcWvweøI 46 Gi GWwg‡UW

Gwf‡WÝ- Lmov gvbwPÎ Abymv‡i
ey‡q‡Ui †k‡i evsjv n‡j †Kv‡bv †M÷
nvDR Av‡Q wK bv?- †M÷ nvDR
bvB, †M÷iæg Av‡Q|

(O) ‡M÷ iæ‡gi Kwi‡Wvi w`‡q

Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg MZ 05/10/2019 wLª:
Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.00 Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv
mgq †k‡i evsjv nj ey‡q‡Ui ‡M÷ iæ‡g
Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj wKbv †mB wel‡q
†Kvb wfwWI †iKW©, j¨v‡U›U
wcÖ›U, dzU wcÖ›U, c¨v‡U›U
wcÖ›U ev Ab¨ †Kvb ai‡bi wdwRK¨vj
Bwf‡WÝ Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK bv - bv,
Kwi bvB|
ZwK©Z NUbvi wel‡q ‡M÷ iæg n‡Z
Avmvgx †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
Dcw¯’wZi cÖgvb wnmv‡e wfwWI
†iKW©, j¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U, dzU
wcÖ›U, c¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U ev Ab¨
†Kvb ai‡bi wdwRK¨vj Gwf‡WÝ Rã
K‡i‡Qb wK bv- bv, Kwi bvB
(wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv †_‡K)

(P) ‡M÷ iæ‡gi Kwi‡Wvi w`‡q

Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg, †gdZvûj Bmjvg wRqb
Ges †g‡n`x nvmvb iv‡mj MY MZ
05/10/2019 wLª: Zvwi‡L ivZ 10.00
Uvi ci †h ‡Kv‡bv mgq †k‡i evsjv nj
ey‡q‡Ui ‡M÷ iæ‡g Av‡`Š wM‡qwQj
wKbv †mB wel‡q †Kvb wfwWI
†iKW© Rã K‡iwQ‡jb wK?- bv
(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)

(Q) †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg †h

04/10/2019 I 05/10/2019 Bs ZvwiL
ivRkvnx‡Z wQ‡jv Zvnv Zvi 342
avivi mwnZ `vwLjK…Z
unrebutted Public documents
‡_‡KI cÖgvwbZ|
 178
7. weMZ 06/10/19 wLª: ZvwiL mgq
20.05 NwUKv nB‡Z 07/10/19
wLª: ZvwiL mgq 2.30 NwUKvi
g‡a¨ †h †Kvb mgq... nZ¨v K‡ib|
A_¨vr †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
Aveivi dvnv`‡K Po, _vài, jvw_,
wKi, Nywl †g‡i KzbB w`‡q
wc‡V, wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs
†ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôyifv‡e
wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK
¸iyZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib wK
bv?
DËit bv, †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
Aveivi dvnv`‡K Po, _vài, jvw_,
wKi, Nywl †g‡i KzbB w`‡q
wc‡V, wµ‡KU ÷¨v¤ú, w¯‹wcs
†ivc w`‡q wbg©g I wbôyifv‡e
wcwU‡q 40/50 wU gvivZœK
¸iyZi i³v³ RLgmn nZ¨v K‡ib bv ।
সাক্ষ্যগত প্রমাণ:
(K) wcWvweøI 46 Gi
GWwg‡UW Gwf‡WÝ- Avcbvi
Z`šÍKv‡j †Kv‡bv mvÿxi 161 avivi
Ges 164 avivi Aax‡b cÖ`Ë
wee„wZ‡Z Avmvgx †gv‡k©`
AgZ©¨ Bmjvg KZ…©K Aveivi
dvnv`‡K Po, _vài, jvwV w`‡q,
KzbB w`‡q AvNvZ K‡iwQ‡jv
wK bv?- bv|
(L) Ab¨ †Kvb mvÿxI Zvi †Kv‡bv
mv‡ÿ¨ e‡jwb †h, †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨
Bmjvg wWwmmW Aveivi
dvnv`‡K gviai K‡i‡Q A_¨vr
†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg
wWwmm&W †K gv‡i bvB|
(M) RãK„Z ZwK©Z e¯‘mg~n .....
j¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U, dzU wcÖ›U,
c¨v‡U›U wcÖ›U ev wdwRK¨vj
Bwf‡WÝ Rã K‡ib bvB|
(wcWvweøI 46 Gi †Riv †_‡K)
(N) ZwK©Z Lmov gvbwP‡Î
Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©` Ii‡d
†gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg, †gdZvûj
Bmjvg wRqb Ges †g‡n`x nvmvb
iv‡mjMY ‡`i Ae¯’vb wPwýZ
K‡iwQ‡jb wK bv?- bv Kwi bvB|
(wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
(O) Avcbvi `vwLjK…Z Qwe
¸‡jv‡Z Avmvgx †gv: †gv‡k©`
Ii‡d †gv‡k©` AgZ©¨ Bmjvg Gi
Qwe bvB Bnv mwVK wKbv-
nu¨v| (wcWvweøI 4 ৫ এর জেরায়)
 179

Analysis of the examination under

section 342 of CrPC, 1898:

In the case of Mitarjit Singh v The King

Emperor (1921) 6 P.L.J., 644; 68 I.C., 825

and in the case of Varisai Rowther and Anr.vs

King-Emperor reported in (1923) ILR 46 Bom

449 it has been held that “examination

under Section 342 means examination-in-

chief, cross-examination and re-

examination.” But in the present case the

examination has been completed by

writing the examination in chief only. In

addition to this, moreso, the laws

reported in 27 BLD (HCD) 107, 18 BLD

(AD) 695 and 54 DLR (AD) 60 have not

been complied with and ergo the said

examination does not contain any

incriminating evidence against the instant

accused petitioner.

In conclusion:
 180

In the case of Gemini vs Chandran on 14 July, 2006 it

has been uttered the settled law that “the

general safeguard for an accused in a criminal

prosecution is presumption of innocence in his

favour. Law intends to punish only the guilty,

whose guilt is proved to the hilt. Therefore, an

accused in a criminal case is presumed to be

innocent, until the guilt is proved beyond

reasonable doubt. The presumption of

innocence is declared even as a human right by

the Supreme Court. (vide Narendra Singh v.

State of M.P., [(2004) 10 SCC 699] and P.N.

Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala, [1995 Supp (2)

SCC 187]” and having no evidence, the instant

innocent accused petitioner Mr. Morshed

Amartya Islam @ Pink who being a

Deans Selected brilliant, simple and

helpful student of BUET (as per PW-21,

PW-23 and PW-42) and also a son of a

Freemdom Fighter, is entitled to be

acquitted from the charges framed aganst

him as the prosecution has been failed to

prove the charges framed against him

beyond any reasonable doubt.

181