দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - Crl. A. No.144 of 2014 final. 6.6.2016dilip.doc




Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider

Mr. Justice Mohammad Bazlur Rahman


(From the judgment and order dated 02.11.2014 passed by the International Crimes Tribunal No.2 (ICT-2) ICT-BD Case No.03 of 2013)

Mir Quasem Ali:                 Appellant.


The Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes

Tribunal, Dhaka Bangladesh: Respondent.

For the Appellant: For the Respondent:

Mr. Khondaker Mahbub Hossain, Senior Advocate (with Mr. S.M. Shahjahan, Advocate), instructed by Mr. Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record.

Mr. Mahbubey Alaam, Attorey General, Bangladesh, (with Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Momtaz Uddin Fakir, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Biswajit Debnath, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Md. Ekramul Haque, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Kh. Diliruzzaman, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Masud Hasan Chowdhury, Deputy Attorney General, and Mr. Bashir Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General), instructed by Mrs. Mahmuda Parveen, Advocate-on-Record.

Date of hearing: 9th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 23rd and 24th February, 2016. Date of Judgment: 8th March, 2016.


Surendra Kumar Sinha, CJ.:


Yahya Khan in a press conference in Dhaka on November 27, 1969. declared that the elections would be held on December 17 except in the cyclone affected


constituencies which would be decided by the Election Commission. He further made it clear that until elections in all constituencies were completed the National Assembly would not sit. Yahya further declared that it was his duty “to see that proposed constitution assured integrity, safety and security of the country and that all those who were participating in elections accepted Legal Framework Order (LFO). If they reject LFO after the elections, I will treat it as if they have not participated in elections and martial law continues in that case.” He also assured that all the federating units would have maximum autonomy.

 The elections were held in peaceful atmosphere.

Awami League won 160 seats out of 162 constituencies in the then East Pakistan now Bangladesh in the National Assembly and 288 out of 300 in the Provincial Assembly. In West Pakistan, Bhutto’s party (PPP) won 81 seats out of 138 constituencies. In the ultimate analysis, Awami League emerged as the absolute majority party in the National Assembly as well as in the Provincial “Assembly acquiring thereby the democratically to form government in the centre and  therefore  to  frame  the  constitution  of  the country at its instance.

On January 12 and 13, 1971 Yahya met Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the majority leader and his top colleagues in Dhaka and discussed six points. Yahya Khan made a disclosure to the pressmen that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was going to be the future Prime Minister of Pakistan. By the end of January, Bhutto came to Dhaka and learnt from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman that  he  was  firm  on  six  points,  and  that  his discussions on revenue and tax matters with Yahya Khan were inconclusive. On February 13, Yahya Khan announced that the National Assembly would meet in Dhaka on March 3, 1971.

On February 15, Bhutto declared that it would be pointless for PPP to attend the Constituent Assembly if PPP could not participate in framing the constitution. On February 29, Bhutto declared that he would organize all of West Pakistan in violent protest if the National Assembly should be convened on March 3. To avert the deteriorating situation, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is known to have developed attitude to relax provincial power over aid and trade within the framework of foreign policy of the country and to clarify that express constitutional provisions were contemplated to empower the National Assembly to impose a federal levy on the federating units.

On March 1, Yahya Khan made announcement postponing the National Assembly session without consulting Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. This gave rise to angry demonstration of protests, processions with slogans against Yahya Khan, Bhutto and West Pakistan. The postponement was castigated as an entente with Bhutto and army to nullify Awami Leaque’s massive victory in the elections. Thousands of people gathered before Purbani hotel where Sheikh Mujubur Rahman was holding a meeting of party leaders. He at once convened a press conference, asked the agitating angry people to remain peaceful and non-violent, declared hartal (strike) for March 2. All offices, businesses, shops, institutions, trains, airplanes etc. stopped functioning. The Martial Law Administrator (MLA) called army to prevent agitation. Curfew was imposed. Vice-Admiral Governor Ahsan was removed for his softness. Lt General Yakub was made the new Governor. He issued punitive martial law order, forbidding printing, publishing pictures, news items, views etc. against the integrity of Pakistan. Governor Yakub was replaced by Lt General Tikka Khan who was ruthlessly oppressive.

On March 3, Yahya Khan invited political leaders for discussion about holding National Assembly session a few weeks later after a conference. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman rejected the invitation and termed it a cruel joke after the killing of unarmed civilians after the elections by the army in different places on miscellaneous pretexts. On the same date, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman held a massive public meeting and mourned the death of the people killed by the army during protest demonstrations and before, and extended hartal up to March 6, and announced a public meeting at race course to be held on March 7. He called upon Governor Yakub to bring back the army to the barracks. People across ‘East Pakistan had already started to build barricades to impede the movement of the army. There was a press report on March 6 that MLA decided on March 5 to return army to the barracks as there were no untoward incidents during the past two days. It would appear that the postponement of National Assembly session without consulting Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was a blunder of Yahya Khan. Since March 1, economic, industrial, and all other activities in East Pakistan were carried on under order of AL.

Bhutto with his 81 seats in the National Assembly started to masquerade his party’s majority in West Pakistan, and designed to demand two Prime Ministers for Pakistan – one in himself and the other in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. This demand obviously meant that Bhutto’s party would not agree to a parliamentary majority rule of East Pakistan in the centre. His demand, by definition, meant a federation of Pakistan, each part having its regional Prime Minister. Bhutto was silent as to whether or not there would be any President in his scheme to look after Pakistan. It was generally presumed that Bhutto might have meant a confederation under a titular Yahya Khan. He further demanded that his party’s consent must be taken in all matters of national importance. This meant that Awami League with an absolute majority in the National Assembly would not be able to take any majority decision in “matters of national importance” – such a perception which was, in fact, undemocratic, vague and unacceptable. Political leaders of West Pakistan other than those belonging to Bhutto’s party kept almost mum over what Bhutto was demanding and saying. Bhutto stood firmly by his demands, while Sheikh Mujibur Rahman fervently requested the President to convene session of the National Assembly. It may be noted that there was a

Military rulers calculated that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would declare independence on March 7, and accordingly, they kept necessary preparation ready to strike Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his audience at the race course. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman sized up the danger and decided not to make imprudent declaration of independence in the public meeting. So, he worded his speech in a manner so as to avoid the instant danger. In the speech, he prudently demanded withdrawal of martial law, immediate transfer of

power, judicial enquiry into the killings of Bengalees by the army, return of the armed forces to the barracks. He, however, urged upon the people of East Pakistan to get prepared for sangram (struggle) and not to wait for any order from him in case he would not be in a position to give further order. “I am prepared to give my blood but shall not betray my people”, said Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and proclaimed thunderously “ the sangram this time is a sangram for liberation, the sangram this time is a sangram for independence”.

The speech of March 7 was a masterpiece of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s courage and political prudence and sagacity as an ultimatum to the military rulers. It inspired Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s immediate listeners and the rest of the people of East Pakistan but alarmed all in West Pakistan and the military rulers. The speech created the needed implicit force of determination and for popular fighting for independence. The unarmed people were already roused to fury against, and hatred for, West Pakistan and the military rulers, and the speech inspired people to fight for independence of Bangladesh.

It would appear that the speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman outlined all that was to be done to make the non-cooperation stand successful and highlighted the atrocities perpetrated on the people of East Pakistan by the army. He, however, suggested peaceful settlement of the demands of East Pakistan and finally warned the rulers of relentless struggle for independence without any further order if no heed was paid to the grievances and demands. There was a speculation that something was going to happen. West Pakistan leaders like Wali Khan and Asghar Khan tried vainly for a compromise.

On March 10, German and Japanese citizens started to depart from Dhaka. The United Nations Secretary General, U Thant, advised his Resident Representative to remove U. N. officials if necessary. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not hesitate to comment “Removal of U. N. O. officials is not enough in the context of the killing and the violation of Human Rights”. Yahya Khan flew to Dhaka on March 15 with a proposal for dialogue with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, while Bhutto went on making provocative speeches in

West Pakistan. Bhutto declared that majority party rule would not apply in Pakistan and repeated that there should be two Prime Ministers in Pakistan. For the dialogue, Yahya Khan brought with him retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Justice Cornelius), the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission (M.M  Ahmed)  and some Generals and Intelligence officers. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman joined the dialogue in deep consideration of the fact that in the West he was looked upon as a democrat and as such he should not disappoint the Western leaders by rejecting the dialogue, and so he included in his team some stalwarts of Awami League.

On March 16, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman met Yahya Khan with a black flag in his car and proposed a judicial enquiry to find out why army (called in civil duty) killed the people. Army continued its atrocities and on March 19 killed a lot of people at Joydebpur where people under leadership of Major K. M. Shafiullah vehemently resisted army movement. The

dialogue continued. Its proceedings were strictly guarded secrets. Press releases simply mentioned “progress”. On March 21, newspapers had it that the dialogue was progressing satisfactorily and that General Yahya Khan asked Awami league and Pakistan People’s Party of Bhutto to draft a constitution jointly on the basis of the points agreed upon, for discussion on the floor of the National Assembly.

The people of East Pakistan naturally believed that the settlement of the political, economic and constitutional issues was being made in a peaceful atmosphere. Information soon trickled down that Bhutto raised objection to the withdrawal of martial law before final and conclusive settlement of the issues and argued that withdrawal of martial law would create insurmountable legal vacuum. Justice Cornelius, Dr. Kamal Hussain and some legal stalwarts including advocate Brohi of Sind, however, did not see any insurmountable vacuum, because an Order of the President could obviously cover the interim constitutional vacuum.

It was supposedly a wrong belief that the military rulers would spare East Pakistan for all that was done under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s leadership since the declaration of non-cooperation. It was clear that Bhutto conspired with the military junta to undo the election victory of Awami league. From the attitude of General Yahya Khan towards the Assembly session one could easily predict that. The possibility of parliamentary government under Awami League as an absolute majority party was intolerable to the army in which East Pakistan had insignificant representation. The so-called dialogue was devised by military and intelligence strategists not only to reinforce Pakistan’s military strength in East Pakistan for a massive assault but also to keep Awami League engaged in the dialogue, so that it could not find time to organize the people for resistance and offensive operations against the pre-planned military assault. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not refuse to have a dialogue, because he was known in the West as a champion of democracy and for peaceful settlement of disputes.

When Awami League was in the dialogue, political agitation had not been relaxed and the students were spectacularly burning in agitation to get rid of the Pakistan rulers, although there was no objective armed preparation in East Pakistan for an armed confrontation. The six-point demands now lost their relevance to the students who by now became much more openly determined to go ahead for one point (independence). March 23 (Pakistan Day) was declared by Awami League as Resistance Day, which by implication marked the end of allegiance to Pakistan. It was on March 23, 1940 that the All-India Muslim League in its session in Lahore (Punjab) resolved a two-nation theory for Indian sub-continent with the objective purpose to create three independent states

under a partition scheme of India. And the creation

of Pakistan was the outcome of this resolution with radical changes in 1946 (two states in place of three), and in 1947 (partition of Bengal and Punjab) accepted by Muslim league without any referendum. And the people of East Pakistan got a territory as Bangladesh, which was not our original demand.

March 25 was a day of speculation as to what was going to happen when the dialogue apparently came to a close without any proclamation of result. It was not known what the Awami League leaders decided about the next course of action, after it was declared that 23rd March (Pakistan Day) would be celebrated in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) as Resistance Day as a result of which Bangladesh Flag prepared by students was hoisted in Dhaka and outside and in foreign missions.

Students held a meeting in the morning of March 23 at Paltan, which commenced with the song – “Amar Sonar Bangla ......” and a flag of Bangladesh. A procession from the meeting marched to the residence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the flag was presented

to him in a ceremonial style. The hoisting of Bangladesh flag on the Pakistan Day was an end of allegiance to Pakistan. On March 24, Yahya visited Dhaka cantonment and the Generals visited garrisons outside Dhaka. Yahya left Dhaka at 7 p.m. on March 25.  

(Extracts from SHEIKH MUJIB: LIBERATION WAR: BANGLADESH by Abdul Khaleque.)  

On the night following March 25, 1971, the Pakistani army had begun a relentless crackdown on Bangalees, all across what was then East Pakistan and is today an independent Bangladesh. Untold thousands of people were shot, bombed, or burned to death in Dhaka alone. Archer Blood, the United States’ Consul General in Dacca had spent that grim night on the roof of his official residence, watching as tracer bullets lit up the sky, listening to clattering machine guns and thumping tank guns. There were fires across the ramshackle city. He knew the people in the deathly darkness below. He liked them. Many of the civilians facing the bullets were professional colleagues; some were his friends.

It was, Blood and his staffers thought, their job to relay as much of this as they possibly could back to Washington. Witnessing one of the worst atrocities of the Cold War, Blood’s Consulate documented in horrific detail the slaughter of Bangalees civilians: an area the size of two dozen city blocks that had been razed by gunfire; two newspaper office buildings in ruins; thatch-roofed villages in flames; specific targeting of the Bengalis’ Hindu minority.

The U.S. Consulate gave detailed accounts of the killings at Dhaka University, ordinarily a leafy, handsome enclave. At the wrecked campus, professors had been hauled from their homes to be gunned down. The provost of the Hindu dormitory, a respected scholar of English, was dragged out of his residence and shot in the neck. Blood listed six other faculty members “reliably reported killed by troops,” with

several more possibly dead. One American who had visited the campus said that students had been “mowed down”  in  their  rooms  or  as  they  fled,  with  a residence hall in flames and youths being machine- gunned.

“At least two mass graves on campus,” Blood cabled. “Stench terrible.” There were 148 corpses in one of these mass graves, according to the workmen forced to dig them. An official in the Dhaka Consulate estimated that at least five hundred students had been killed in the first two days of the crackdown, almost none of them fighting back. Blood reckoned that the rumored toll of a thousand dead at the University was “exaggerated, although nothing these days is inconceivable.” After the massacre, he reported that an American eyewitness had seen an empty army truck arriving to get rid of a “tightly packed pile of approximately twenty five corpses,” the last of many such batches of human remains.

Blood detailed how Pakistan was using U.S. weapons-tanks, jet fighters, gigantic troop transport airplanes, jeeps, guns, ammunition-to crush the Bangalees. In one of the awkward alignments of the Cold War, President Richard Nixon had lined up the democratic United States with this authoritarian government, while the despots in the Soviet Union found themselves standing behind democratic India.

The onslaught would continue for months. The Dhaka Consulate stubbornly kept up its reporting. But, Blood later recalled, his cables were met with “a deafening silence.” He was not allowed to protest to the Pakistani authorities. He ratcheted up his dispatches, sending in a blistering cable tagged “Selective Genocide,” urging his bosses to speak out against the atrocities being committed by the Pakistani military.

But Pakistan’s slaughter of its Bangalees in 1971 was starkly different. Here the United States was allied with the killers. The White House was actively and knowingly supporting a murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments. There was no question about whether the United States should intervene; it was already intervening on behalf of a military dictatorship decimating its own people.

Indians were overwhelmingly outraged by the atrocities in East Pakistan. In a factionalized country where popular harmony is a surpassingly rare thing, there was a remarkable consensus: Pakistan was behaving horrifically; the Bangalees were in the right; India had to act in defense of democracy and innocent lives. Almost the entire Indian political spectrum, form Hindu nationalists on the right to socialists and communists on the left, lined up behind the Bangalees.

Bangladeshis still mourn their losses from not so long ago. This book (The Blood Telegram) is not – and does not purport to be anything like a comprehensive account of these crimes against humanity. It mostly documents the American eyewitness perspective on them, which is obviously only a part of the complete record of horrors. Still, this is an important portion, because it is the true local viewpoint of the Pakistani Government’s superpower ally. After all, Archer Blood and the other U.S. officials reporting back to the Nixon administration knew they had every career incentive to downplay the enormity of what they saw; their stark reporting thus stands as a crucial and credible part of that wider story. 

Yahya Khan had a green light for his killing campaign. At the White House, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger knew that a fierce assault was starting, but made no move to stop or slow it. He recounted the killing of politicians, professors, and students. The streets were flooded with Hindus and others trying desperately to get out of Dhaka. This assault, he wrote, could not be justified by military necessity: “There is no r[e]p[ea]t no resistance being offered in Dacca to military.” 

Blood’s team also saw the Pakistan Air Force using F-86 Sabres, U.S. jet fighters famed for their performance in the Korean War. Blood reported daily sorties flown by an F-86 squadron at Dhaka’s heavily fortified airfield, in flights of two or four. Two F- 86s were seen taking off from Dhaka to crush Bangalee resistance in a nearby town.

Yahya’s slaughter drove Bangalees to take up arms. The nucleus of the resistance was trained Bangalees serving in Pakistan’s military, in units called the East Pakistan Rifles and the East Bengal Regiment, as well as police officers. Unable to stomach the crackdown, many of these Bangalees rebelled. They became early targets for Yahya’s assault. As Archer Blood remembered, the Pakistani army “deliberately set out first to destroy any Bengali units in Dacca which might have a military capability,” particularly the Bangalee troops in the East Pakistan Rifles. “And so they just attacked their barracks and killed all of them that they could.” Scott Butcher, the junior political officer in  the  U.S.  Consulate  in  Dhaka,  says  that  the Pakistan army swiftly turned on the Bangalees in their ranks: “a lot of the gunfire we heard were executions of some of those personnel.”

As one of Yahya Khan’s ministers later wrote, “The Pakistan Army’s brutal actions . . . can never be condoned or justified in any way. The Army’s murderous campaign in which many thousands of innocent people including women, the old and sick, and even children, were brutally murdered while millions fled from their homes to take shelter either in remote places or in India, constituted a measureless tragedy,”. Days after the shooting stopped, Bhutto set up a judicial commission to investigate the battlefield defeat in East Pakistan led by Pakistan’s chief justice Hamoodur Rahman as well as two other eminent judges. It produced a scathing official record condemning the military for corruption, turpitude, and brutality, and demanding courts-martial for Yahya, Niazi, and other disgraced military leaders. While the report concentrates on military defeats, it includes frank testimony on the atrocities from senior army officers and civilian officials. This judicial commission convinced that “there can be no doubt that a very large number of unprovoked and vindictive atrocities did in fact take place,” urged Pakistan’s government to set up a “high-powered court or commission of inquiry” to “hold trials of those who indulged in these atrocities, brought a bad name to the Pakistan Army and alienated the sympathies of the local population by their acts of wanton cruelty and immorality against our own people.”

But nothing happened. The report was so harsh on the military that it was suppressed, and only came to light in an Indian magazine in 2000 and in Karachi’s intrepid Dawn newspaper in 2001. While Bhutto was keen to discredit the likes of Yahya Khan and Niazi, he – far from facing up to the horrors – refused to

accept losing Bangladesh and insisted on the necessity of the crackdown. “I would have done it with more intelligence, more scientifically, less brutally,” Bhutto told an interviewer, heaping all blame on “Yahya Khan and his gang of illiterate psychopaths.” Bhutto put the notorious General Tikka Khan in charge of the army, insisting that during the massacres “he was a soldier doing a soldier’s job.”  

As for the women who were raped and killed, he flatly said, “I don’t believe it.” While saying that “such brutality” against the people was unnecessary, Bhutto defended the use of force at home: “You can’t

build without destroying. To build a country, Stalin was obliged to use force and kill. Mao Tse-tung was obliged to use force and kill.”

(The Blood Telegram by Gray J. Bass - extractions)

On March 25, 1971, the army occupation of East Pakistan turned into a genocide. On the late afternoon of 25 March, the political confusion ended abruptly when the last President of united Pakistan, Yahya khan, suddenly flew home to West Pakistan. Just prior to mid-night when the city was about to seek refuge from all the hustle and bustle of daily chores, the attack came. The Pakistani army indiscriminately attacked the Bangalees.

Army tanks went in different directions to demolish different targets. One contingent rolled through the main street from airport to the city and attacked a newspaper office in front of the Radio Pakistan Dhaka office, and the same contingent took over the control of the radio station. Another went towards Dhaka University and attacked students’ dorms. This attack was actually video tapped by a professor of Dhaka Engineering University, and the tape was smuggled out of the country as a first hand report of the massacre to the outside world. The area where the attack took place in the student dorms, there were also selective break-ins at the faculty residences and a couple of professors were killed on that fearful night.

U.S M-24 tanks led the Punjabi-Baluchi assault upon student dormitories on the campus of the University of Dhaka. Iqbal and Jaganath halls were filled with sleeping students and faculty when the tanks opened fire and continued shooting at least five minutes. Soldiers crouched behind the tanks then charged into the shell-battered dorms with fixed bayonets and killed all persons still alive: students, professors, caretakers, and servants.

The highly equipped Pakistani army attack Dhaka city’s largest police station (Police Line/Barrack at Rajarbag. The local police responded with their three-not three rifles. They were in their beds when the attack took place. Thus, they were in their traditional night suit-a loongy and a ganji. They scattered all over the neighborhood to escape the attack, then started organizing a resistance. It was beyond their imagination that the Pakistani army would attack law enforcement officers of the same country when there was no declaration of war and there were no charges against the local police about major violations of the law of the land. The attack was swift and brutal. There were no accounts of the deaths as the army wiped out evidence and cleaned the city after seizing control. Before the so-called control of Dhaka city it was “a night of infamy” ... one could watch with horror the constant flash of tracer bullets across the dark sky and listened to the more ominous clatter of machine gun fire and the heavy clump of tank guns...(Blood, 2002: 195). “that night, the holocaust began” (Loshak, 1971:79).

The administration took maximum measures to keep the operation completely away from any foreign journalists. However, two journalists, Michel Laurent, a French photographer working for the Associated Press news agency, and Simon Dring, of the Daily Telegraph  of London, resourcefully evaded the administration’s control. In his report, Dring gave

the first eyewitness account of the terror campaign, which Pakistan’s leaders had designed to “save” the “integrity” of their nation. “The first targets as the tanks rolled into Dacca”, Dring reported, “were the students. Caught completely by surprise, some 200 students were killed in Iqbal Hall,...as shells slammed into the building and their rooms were sprayed with machine gun fire” (Loshak, 1971:80). As the Pakistani army violated the trust of the local police forces consequently many Bangalee lawenforcement agents left the force and joined the freedom fight. After the crack down the political protests turned into a resistance movement with the goal of creating a nation state-Bangladesh.

These selective attacks were also followed by many more random attacks. The rampage the West Pakistani army unlashed against the Bangalees of Dhaka City was not an isolated incidence. The West Pakistani army actually initiated a calculated and well coordinated attack on Bangalees across the

country. The attack of 25th March was a planned attack. The tragic events of 1971 need not be re- catalogued. Genocide, torture, murder, rape all were characteristic of West Pakistan’s military regime’s fumbling an unsuccessful attempt to maintain its repressive rule over its de facto eastern colony (Fickell, 1973:130).

Obviously, it was a fact that West Pakistani armies committed genocide in East Pakistan. People may try to ignore the veracity of the attack and downplay the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army and some of their stooges like the members of Al-Badar and Al Shams, “two separate wings” of Razakars organization. “Well-educated and properly motivated students from the schools and madrasas were put in Al-Badar Wing, where they were trained to undertake ‘Specialized Operations’ while the reminder were grouped together under Al-Shams, which was responsible for the protection of bridges, vital points, and other areas,” - - Niazi wrote (1998: 78). However, Niazi did not elaborate on “Specialized Operations, ” but those who lived through the period were very much aware of the meaning of “Specialized Operations” – killing innocent Bangalees.

The West Pakistani attack in March was an attack on a specific ethnic group to suppress their hopes and aspirations, destroy their identity and eliminate their existence; thus it was genocide. Genocide is the deliberate act, typically of a state, to destroy a specific group, typically defined in ethnic terms (Dictionary of Sociology, 2000). The word is derived from the genos (people or race) and the Latin caedere (to kill). The target of Pakistani armies was the Bangalees and not any other ethnic group.

When thousands of innocent people were being massacred and their houses were burnt, and women were being raped, the two most powerful nations in the world- America and China- were engaged in diplomatic networking, and the facilitator was the instrumental of the genocide. History repeatedly confirms that political dynamics behave strangely and are mostly devoid of humanity or justice.

The calculated genocide on the part of West Pakistani army and administration created a backlash for the rulers. A resistance force was born which was known as Mukti Bahini with the total support of the people of the country except a handful of disgruntled political activists who did not believe in the power of people and supported genocide for their personal gains. The West Pakistani Army did not get the picture of the situation. “Despite their long and careful preparations, the generals’ plans misfired... The plan recoiled. For the military elite never had

any conception of the strength of Bengali feeling, nor the faintest idea of the determined spirit that would inspire the Bangla Desh resistance movement” (Loshak, 1971:88). The spirited Bangalee rose like a Royal Bengal Tiger and gave birth of another movement Shadinater Songram –Movement for Freedom- and the fighters were known as “Mukti Bahani” or “Mukti Fauz”. (From Protest to Freedom : The Birth of Bangladesh by Mokerrom Hossain by Mokerrom Hossain)

For Genocide hard evidence of both local and foreign provenance abound to the effect that the primary responsibility is to be fixed on the Pakistani military that authored the “Operation Searchlight” and unleashed the genocide. To be added to this category of complicity is the role of the local collaborators called razakars. Robert Payne gives a chilling account of the Pakistani genocide in his widely read book Massacre : “For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on. They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organised massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. Muslim soldiers sent out to kill Muslim peasants, went about their work mechanically and efficiently until killing defenseless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine...

Such a narrative, among the many blood-curdling and heart-rending ones, clearly demonstrates that the mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally planned of modern genocide’s. Records suggest that a group of five generals planned and orchestrated the genocide : Yahya Khan, Tikka Khan, Chief of staff Pirzada, security chief Umar Khan, and intelligence chief Akbar Khan. None of the generals or the lower ranking officers involved on the ground has ever been brought to trial.

In a secondary sense, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is to be accused of complicity in the genocide. But the Jamaat-i-Islami in both the wings, was the main back- up political force that had its distorted and obscurantist Islamic ideology at the services of the genocidal military junta.

But as far as trial of the perpetrators of genocide in Bangladesh is concerned our immediate focus is on those who are called razakars, who in 1971, belonged either to Jamat-i-Islami in the then East Pakistan and its student wing Islami Chatra Sangha. Moreover, there were other collaborators who did not belong to these organisations, had their own political platforms, but shared the ideology of razakars in opposing Bangladesh and actively participating in the genocide. To this category belonged such rightist political parties as the Muslims League, (Council/Convention) and the Nejam-i- Islam. Of the many political personalities quarters who aided and allotted genocide special wanton should be made of late Fazlul Quader Chowdhury and his son Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury.

(Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971 : Fixing Responsibility By Dr. Syed Anwar Husain, published in ‘Bangladesh Genocide 1971 And The Quest For Justice’)

International Media highlighted the massacre The Times London

The slaughter in East Pakistan.

“The more than news from East Pakistan accumulates, the more horrowing it becomes. Senseless murder hysterical cruelty and what must be a creeping fear run like a current

throughout this packed mass of human beings. “ 16.04.1971

New Statesman

“The Blood of Bangladesh, If blood is the price of a people’s right to independence Bangladesh has overpaid. “


The Time Magazine

Pakistan Toppling over the Brink.

“In Dacca, army tanks and truckloads of troops

with fixed bayonets came clattering out of their

suburban base shouting “victory of Allah” and “

victory to Pakistan” --- Dan Coggin reported:

Before long, howitzer tank, artillery and rocket

blasts rocket half a dozen scattered sections of

Dacca. Tracers arched over the darkened city.” 07.04.1971

The New York Times

Bloodbath in Bengal.

“---- On any basis, the United States would have

a humanitarian duty to speak against bloodbath in Bengal.”



“---Reports coming out of the East via diplomats, frightened refugees and clandestine broadcasts varied wildly. Estimates of the total dead ran as high as 300000.”


The New York Times

“----- The Pakistan military are using jet fighter bombers, heavy artillery and gun boats mostly supplied  by the United States, the Soviet Union and Communist China.”


The Evening Star

Death in East Pakistan

“----- A New York Times correspondent, who

crossed from India into East Pakistan, reported that government troops, acting on orders from Karachi, have killed engineers, doctors, professors and students in an attempt to eradicate the future Bengali leadership.”



“Dacca, City of the Dead.

----- a Westerner heard soldiers cry, “ Kill the bastards !”


The Washington Daily News

Slaughter in East Pakistan

“Eyewitness reports, one more ghasty than

another, continue to filter out of East

Pakistan, telling of the massacre of the Bengali people by Pakistani Army------- evidence mounts that it is cold bloodedly murdering minority Hindus, Bengali separatists,  intellectuals, doctors, professors, students, in short those who could lead a self governing East Pakistan.“


News Week.

The terrible blood bath of Tikka Khan

“----- Anthoney Mascaranhas, a Karachi newsman who also writes for the London Sunday Times was so horrified by the events he witnessed that he and his family fled to London to publish the story. He wrote , “ I’ve seen people literally strick dumb by the horror of seeing their children murdered in front of them or their daughters dragged off into sexual slavery. I have no doubt at all that there have been a hundred “Mylaies and Liddices” in East Pakistan and I think, there will be more.”


Times Magazine

The Ravaging of Golden Bengal.

“----- Kushtia a city of 40,00 now looks, as a

world Bank team, reported, “like the morning after a nuclear attack”


The Sunday Times Gencocide

By Anthony Mascarenhas

“For six days as I travelled with officers of the 9th Division head quarters at Comilla, I

witnessed at close quarters the extent of the killing, I saw Hindus, hunted from village to village and door to door shot off hand after a cursory “short arm inspection” showed they were uncircumcised. I have heard the screams of men bludgeoned to death in the compound of Circuit House ( Civil administration head quarters) in Comilla. I have witnessed the brutality of “kill and burn missions” as the army units, after clearing out the rebels, pursued the pogrom in the towns and the village”   


The Sunday Times

A Regime of Thugs and Bigots

An account by Murray Sayle.

“---- From Satkhira I proceeded to Khulna, administrative capital of the district. -------- -A quarter of the population of the whole district, which was more than three million at the last census, is missing , dead or gone to

India. “



 House of Commons

Estimates of the numbers who have died.

-  “The official estimate of the West Pakistan Government is that only 15,000 have died, but the lowest independent estimates start at 100,000 and many estimates are over a million have died already.


Statement by Mr. Russel Johnston,  Member, House of Commons, U.K. on March 31, 1971. According to eye witness reports, have been savage and indiscriminate and have resulted in the widespread slaughter

 of civilians. “


Avb›` evRvi

Òc~e©es‡M MYnZ¨v m¤ú‡K© e„wUk cvj©v‡g‡›Ui cªkwgK `jxq m`m¨ wgt eª“m WMjvm g¨vb Gi e³e¨|

Òwf‡qZbv‡g ÒgvBjvBÓ GKwU e¨wZµg, Avi †MvUv c~e©e½B gvBjvB-

evqvd«vi m‡½ Zzjbv nq bv|

evsjv‡`‡ki Ae¯nv‡K A‡b‡K evqvcªvi m‡½ Zzjbv K‡i‡Qb wKš‘ kªx g¨v‡bi g‡Z, evqvd«vi m‡½ GLvbKvi cwiw¯’wZi ZzjbvB nq bv| evqvd«v‡Z c~e©evsjvi gZ GK wbe©vPb nq wb|Ó

April, 1971

Jhon  Stonehouse’s interview with B.B.C. “What happened in East Bengal “makes Vietnam look like a tea- party .”


    The Statesman

ÒBritish M.P. Arther Bottomley said this had been the most horrowing mission he had

undertaken in his entire public life.

 Oxfam Report 

The testimony of 60 on the crisis in Bengal. They are eye witnesses, and the story they tell is horrifying. It is a story of millions hounded, homeless and dying. It is too a story of the world community engaged in a communal ostrich act. Ó

Senator Edward Kenedy

ÒThe tragedy of East Bengal is not only a tragedy for Pakistan. It is not only a tragedy for

India. It is a tragedy for the entire world community, and it is the responsibility of that community to act together to ease the crises. Ó

Nicolas Tomalian

ÒThe Paksitan crises is the worst disaster that

has faced the world for the past 30 years.

The villains, those Pakistani generals who ordered a military attack on their own countrymen last March 25th , are more obviously in the wrong than any military aggressors since the Hitler war. Ó

John Pilger, Daily Mirror

The life, or death, of Bangladesh is the single most important issue the world has had to face since the decision to use nuclear weapons as a means  of political blackmail . It is that because never before have the world’s poor confronted the world’s rich with such a mighty mirror of Man’s inhumanity.”

Dr. R.C. Hioman, MRCP, Save the Children fund, Bengal.

Tens of thousands of children have already died in the refugee camps in the India border area.

 James Cameron, Journalist

For six months we have stood by in shocked surprise and watched disaster grow into catastrophe and hourly nearer to tragedy and we still stand by and watch.

P190-   Claude Azonlay, Paris Match

The whole world stands accused of inaction while seven million people are in danger of death. A graveyard of children.------. In Bengal two million children are dying, killed by hanger, and we remain idle and no sanctions will be imposed on us except may be-of so remote- that of guilt.

Ernest Hillen, Weekend Magazine (Canada)

Unprecedented numbers of people are suffering and dying, and the members are growing, there is widespread famine, and there is the very real of war.

The blame for the catastrophe rightly enough belongs to the men who run the West Pakistan Government. The sheme belongs to all of us. Almost from the start, the World community could have stopped it; And it must be stopped now by whatever manner or means. Our children

will inherit enough shame.

John Drewary, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I found it impossible to shut away the memories of what I saw, in the refugee camps of west Bengal and along with trials leading out of East Pakistan, in that corner of my mind reserved for other horrors I witnessed during wards I covered in Korea, the Congo, Egypt , Vietnam and Biafra. It is not that the brutization of the people of East Pakistan is worse than what has happened to countless others throughout history. The effect of sword, fire and starvation differ very little in degree on the individual body and spirit.

It is simply that the magnitude of the tragedy is so immense, so overwhelming, it overshadows all other things. The cry for help coming out of in and East Pakistan is echoing all around the world. If we ignore it we are killing our future too.”

  May 12, 1971 Congressional record- Extension of Remarks 

A letter written by an American Family Evacuated from East Pakistan in the House of Representatives.

We have been witness to what amounts to genocide. The west Pakistan army used tanks, heavy artillery and machine guns on unarmed civilians killed 1,600 police while sleeping in their barracks, demolished the student dormitories at Dacca University and excavated a mass grave for the thousands of students; they systematically eliminated the intelligentsia of the country, wiped out entire villages I could go on and on. Its hard to believe it happened-- ---- That was great human tragedies of modern times.”

Senator Tany Congressional record Senate

July 7, 1971. The war in East Pakistan.

U.S. Arms for Pakistan . A shameful record. This is, we submit, an astonishing and shameful record, with two meanings.

   The first is that, for the shabbiest of political reasons, the United States is supplying military equipment to a brutal regime that has killed an estimated 200,000 of its citizens and driven me six million others out of their country.

Congressional record-Senate

July 20, 1971- Tragedy in Pakistan.

The tragedy in Pakistan worsens each


University of California.

14 Professors of Univeristy of California.

Loss Angeles, Calif, May 17, 1971.  Wrote a letter to the Editor

Loss Angeles Times.

They said;

We,  the under  signed scholars of Asian Studies on the faculty of UCLA  write to express our profound sense of anguish and shock at the  news we have read and personally received of the brutal and protracted massacres of Bengali civilians by West Pakistan’s armed forces since March 25,  1971. From every creditable  report we have seen it appears that General Yahya Khan’s Army directed the full strength of its fire power at such bastions of “resistance” to his military dictatorship as the unarmed camp of Dacca University.

July 20,1971.

Congressional record- Senate

Tragic incidents in East Pakistan.

Mr. Saxbe, Mr. President, I invite the attention of Senators to further events and accounts relating to the tragic incidents in East Pakistan.

Mr. Saxbe readout an articles published in the Boston Sunday Globe July 11, 1971.

Title was :

East Pakistan a mounting crisis – witness reports on Death, Destruction .

An eye witness account of the devastations left by West Pakistani troops, fanning out along the river leading from Dacca to the Bay of Bengal, is told in the following exparts from a tapeletter recorded in the area in late May, 

William H. Ellies, a Canadian engineer working on coastal embankments near the Bay of Bengal , recorded his comments on an unofficial and highly dangerous survey of the area in which he worked- ---- ---------------------------------------------------- Barisal was completely deserted, only the dogs on the streets although it was still an hour and a half before curfew. I traveled to Jessore-------- a road that I have traveled many times before -------- villages on both sides of the road have been burnt. As was pointed out to me, there is not a family in this whole country that has not been affected that has not lost members that have not been shot or not looted, or had their women raped, or young girls taken away.”

July 23, 1971.

Congressional record- Senate

The situation in East Pakistan.

Mr. McGovern, Mr. President, the present situation of bloodshed and repression in the East Pakistan should concern us all -----. One need only read the report of the mission of the World Bank to be moved by the sufferings of the Bengalies, For example, in the town of Jessore, where 80,000 lived a few months ago, only 15,000 to 20,000 people remained; 20,000 have

been killed and the rest of the population has fled into the country side. Thousands of East Pakistani are being slaughtered daily in a Gestapo like orgy of killing.”

Some other news headings of the most influential and

widely circulated newspapers and magazines in the world regarding genocide committed in Bangladesh are mentioned here.

Genocide (the Sunday Times, London 13.06.1971), A regime of Thugs and Bigots (The Sunday Times, London-11.07.1971), In Dacca, Troops use artillery to held revolt (The New York times, 28.03.1971), Plunge into chaos (The Synday Morning Herald-29.03.1971), Pakistan Tragedy (the AGE,- Canberra-29.03.1971), A Massacre in Pakistan (The Guardian, London 31.03.1971), In the name of Pakistan (The New York Times-31.03.1971), Weep for Bengal(The New Stateman, London-02.04.1971), The Slaughter in East Pakistan (The Times, London-03.04.1971), The Holocaust in East Pakistan must be ended (The New Nation-Singapore- 06.04.1971), Mass murder in Bengali (Expression, Stock home 12.04.1971), Blood of Bangladesh (The New Stateman, London-16.04.1971), Death in East Pakistan (The Baltimore Sun-04.05.1971), Genocide in East Pakistan, (The Saturday review, USA-22.05.1971), East Bengal tragedy, (The Guardian, London-27.05.1971), Tragedy in Bengalis, (Commentary Broadcast in the afro Asian Service of Radio Prague Zechoslovakia- 14.06.1971). Another Genghis, (The Hongkong Standard- 25.06.1971), Guilt and disaster over Pakistan (The Manila Chronicle-05.07.1971), East Pakistanis cry for help, (The Palaver Weekly-Ghana-08.07.1971); Normalse with bayonets (Vecernje Novosti-Yogoslvia- 08.07.1971), Pakistan condemned (The New York Times- 14.07.1971). The Bengal the murder of people , ( The News Week 02.08.1971); Cruel steps against population of East Pakistan (USSR Press, trued- 02.04.1971), Premeditated brutality (Le-Monde, Paris- 09.04.1971), Stop this genocide (DJakarta Times- 15.04.1971), Army Terror (The Sun, London- 26.04.1971).


Islami Chhatra Sangha (ICS) was the student organization of Jamat-e-Islami. Solim Monsur Khaled, a Pakistani researcher, made a research work on Al- Badar Bahini. He took interviews of the members of Al-Badar Bahini who fled away to Pakistan after the War of Liberation as well as their friends in Bangladesh who were members of “Badar Bahini” and their organisers. He wrote a book named “Al-Badar” published by Talaba Publishers Lahore, Pakistan. It

has been narrated in the said book that on 10th March, 1971 a meeting of ICS was held in Dhaka where members of Mazlish-e-Sura and District Nazems of ICS were present.  In four days meeting, the participants  discussed about the   prevalent situation of the country and led the following three proposals for the members of ICS.

1| cwiw¯nwZ wb‡Ri MwZ‡Z Pj‡Z w`‡q wew”QbœZvev`x‡`i m½x n‡q hvIqv|

2| cwiw¯nwZ wb‡Ri MwZ‡Z Pj‡Z †`qv Ges wbi‡c¶ f~wgKv cvjb Kiv|

3| cwiw¯nwZi †gvo Nywi‡q †`qv|

Out of those three proposals, the ICS decided

to follow the 3rd proposal, that is, ”cwiw¯nwZi †gvo Nywi‡q †`qv ignoring the mandate of people given in the election held in 1970 in which Awami League got absolute majority in the National Assembly, ICS took aforesaid cruel/inhuman decision against the will of the people. In that meeting it was resolved, Ò------my‡hvM G‡m‡Q hv‡Z GLv‡b Avj−vni Øxb‡K Zvi Avmj AvKw …Z‡Z Kv‡qg Kiv Avi `ywbqvi

mvg‡b Gi mZ¨Zvi ev¯ e— mv¶¨ †ck Kiv| Avgv‡`i Rb¨ GwU me‡P‡q eo †bqvgZ| Avgiv PvB  †h cvwK¯ v— ‡bi cªwZwU gymjgv‡bi g‡a¨ GB †bqvg‡Zi gh©v`v `v‡bi RbK m„wó Kie| Zv‡`i ü`‡q Aš ‡— i GB wPš v— wU ewm‡q †`e †h, GB †bqvg‡Zi †ndvh‡Zi Rb¨ †h †Kvb Kzievbx ¯^xKvi Kiv KwVb bq| ----- Avi RbK wb‡q kvnv`Z bmxe n‡j Zv n‡e eû DbœZgv‡bi kvnv`vZ| ---- Avgv‡`i      cvwK¯ v— ‡bi GB Ask‡K †ndvRZ Ki‡Z n‡e| wVK Ggbfv‡e †hfv‡e gmwR` †ndvRZ Kiv nq| ---- Bmjvgx QvÎ msN cvwK¯ v— ‡bi A¶zbZ œ I RbM‡bi Rvbgvj I B¾Z †ndvR‡Zi Rb¨ mvg‡b AMªmi n‡e| ------- Avgiv Gw`‡K Bmjvgx kw³ wb‡q `ykg‡bi mv‡_ gq`v‡b msNv‡Z AeZx©b ne Ab¨w`‡K ¶gZvi KvQvKvwQ †cŠ‡Q Zvi ms‡kva‡bi gZ Avgv‡`i gZ K‡i  †Póv Kie|Ó Though Pakistani Army slaughtred and destroyed  united Pakistan and buried their own country on the night following 25th March, 1971 by opening fire and shelling using tanks, heavy machine guns etc.  and thereby massacred thousands of innocent unarmed people when they were sleeping, the members of ICS started collaborating with the Pak army to save Pakistan in the name of Islam and thereby frustrated the mandate of the people. In order to form a separate Rajaker force ICS took decision in a meeting on 15.05.1971. Thereafter, on 16th May, 1971 , Major Riyad Hossain Malik, of

13 Baluch Regiment started giving training to 47 ICS members. On 21.05.1971, they were named as “Al Badar” Bahini. In the said book the author narrated the formation and activities of Al-Badar Bahini in Chittagong as under:


GLv‡b 10‡g 1971 †j. K‡Y©j AvRg I Acv‡ikb Pxd dv‡Zgx QvÎ ms‡Ni `vwqZ¡kxj‡`i

mv‡_ civgk© K‡ib| GB ch©v‡q GKwU wgwUs †bfvj †nW‡KvqvU©‡i Avi GKwU †mbv hvÎx QvDwb‡Z n‡qwQj| Bmjvgx QvÎ ms‡Ni PÆMªv‡gi bv‡Rg mnvqZv `v‡bi e¨vcv‡i kZ©v‡ivc K‡ib Ges e‡jb

†h, Avcbviv hw` mwZ¨B Avgv‡`i Kv‡Q mnvqZv Pvb Zvn‡j †Kvb Acv‡ikbB civgk© e¨wZ‡i‡K

n‡e bv| GB K_vwU g~jbxwZ wn‡m‡e P~ovš— K‡i †jLv nq| e¯ Z— t Ryb Gi gvSvgvwS mg‡q PÆMªvg kn‡i myjZvb Lv‡j` web Iqvwj`, Rwni“wÏb gynvg¥` evei I Zv‡iK web wiqv‡`i bv‡g Avj-

e`‡ii KÕwU †Kv¤úvwb MVb Kiv nq| mgMª †Rjvq 37wU cv −Uzb wQj| GLv‡b cvK evwnbxi 24 d«wóqvi †dvm© †iwR‡g›U †gvZv‡qb wQj| ------ AvevwmK GjvKv ¸‡jvi wRg¥v`vi wQj Avj e`i

Gi Dci| ------- PÆMªvg †m±‡i Avj- e`‡ii me‡P‡q ‡ekx KvR wQj wmwfj cªkvmb‡K cªkvmwbK I cªwZi¶vi  Kv‡R mnvqZv Kiv|Ó  The author published the extracts of the interview given by Abdur Rahman ( Chittagong), one of the members of Badar Bahini. He

said : Òc~e© cvwK¯ v— ‡bi `~¯‹„wZKvix‡`i g~‡jv‡”Q` Kivi Rb¨ c Kevwnbx hLb ZrciZv ïi“

Kij , ZLbKvi QvÎ msN Gi Kgx© †jUvi c¨v‡W Qwe jvwM‡q  mwfj I mvgwiK cªkvmb †_‡K mZ¨vwqZ K‡i wbZ| GwUB nZ Zv‡`i AvB,wW, KvW©| ---- Avj e`‡ii wZbwU e¨vP †U«wbs wbj | Avgiv mv`v †Wª‡m KvR KiZvg| ----- PÆMªv‡gi †fZi wZbwU A¯¿ †K›`ª wQj| GKwU ga¨Lv‡b, GKwU  Dˇi, Av‡iKwU wQj `w¶‡b|Ó Lt. Gen. A.A.K. Niazi in his

book, “Betrayal of East Pakistan”, stated about the formation of Badar Bahini with the following words:

 ÒTwo separate wings called Al-Badar and Al-Shams

were organized. Well educated and properly motivated students from the schools and madrasas were put in Al- Badar Wing, where they were trained to undertake

        Specialized OperationsÓ while the remainder were

grouped together under Al-Shams, which was responsible for the protection of bridges, vital points, and other areas.Ó (underlined by us)

ÒThe campaign confirmed the IJT’s place in national politics, especially in May 1971 , when the IJT ( Islami Jamiete Tulba= Chatro Sangho) joined the army’s  counterinsurgency  campaign  in West Pakistan. With the help of the Army the IJT organized two paramilitary units, called al-Badar and al-Shams,to fight the Bengali guerrillas. Most of al- Badar consisted of IJT members, who also galvanized support for the operation among the Muhajir community settled in East Pakistan, Matiur Rahman Nizami, the IJT’s nazim-I a’la ( supreme head or organizer) at the time, organized al-Badar and al- Shams from Dhaka University,” [Seyyd Vali Reza Nasr, The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution: The Jama’at Islami of Pakistan] (emphasis supplied)

Hussain Haqqani in his book  ÒPakistan Between Mosque and MilitaryÓ has narrated the formation of Al- Badar Bahini which is as follows: 

ÒArmy decided to raise a Razakaar (volunteer)

force of one hundred thousand from the civilian non Bengalis settled in East Pakistan and the Pro Pakistan Islamic groups. The Jammat-e-Islami and specially its students wing, the Islami Jamiat-e- Talaba (IJT), joined the military’s efforts in May 1971 to launch, two paramilitary counterinsurgency units. The IJT provided a large number of recruits. By September, a force of fifty thousand Razakaars had been raised. Secular West  Pakistani Politicians complained  about “an army of Jamaat-e-Islami nominees”. The two special brigades of Islamis cadres were named Al- Shams ( the sun, in Arabic) and Al- Badar ( the Moon). The names were significant for their symbolic value. Islam’s first battle, under Prophet Muhammad, had been the battle of Badar, and these paramilitary brigades saw themselves as the sun at the crescent of Islamic revival in South Asia.Ó

(underlined by us)

Admittedly, the appellant Mir Quasem Ali was leader of ICS Chittagong town unit in 1971. It is also admitted that he became the Secretary General East Pakistan ICS on 7th November, 1971. Admittedly, he was selected as Secretary General of ICS considering his performance and activities as leader of Chittagong ICS and Al- Badar Bahini.  It is evident that while discharging his duties as Secretary General of East Pakistan ICS he was given charge of Chittagong Division of ICS as well. Such promotion and prize post were given definitely on consideration of his effective activities and

performance as leader of ICS Chittagong town unit. In the case of Ali Ahshan Mohammad Mujahid- Vs. the Chief Prosecutor, 20 BLC (AP)266 and in the unreported case of Motiur  Rahman Nizami, this Division held that the Al-Badar Bahini was formed with the members of ICS. The Pakistani politicians admitted that the members of Badar bahini were ÒJamat-e-Islami nominated armyÓ.

There are overwhelming strong evidence that the above crimes were committed by Pakistani regular and auxiliary forces during the Bangladesh War of Liberation in 1971 (anti-liberation forces call it civil war which, however, in no way diminishes the criminal liability of the perpetrators). In terms of number of people killed (about three million), women raped (two hundred thousand) and persons forced to flee their homes to turn refugees (ten million took shelter in India), the above crimes undoubtedly rank first after Nazi holocaust during the Second World War, followed by genocide committed by Khemr Rouge regime of Pol Pot in mid-seventies in Cambodia, brutal elimination of about one million Hutus by the Tutsis in Rwanda in the late eighties and the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims by the Serbs in Bosnia in the early nineties of the last century. While these latter offenders had been prosecuted, or are being prosecuted, it is preposterous that the crimes committed in Bangladesh during 1971 have remained to date with impunity.

The rationality of holding the trial can be explained from several perspectives:

        These crimes are so heinous in nature that it shocks the conscience of the human kind. It shakes the foundation of human civilization itself. The perpetrators are regarded as the hostis humani generis i.e. enemy of the human kind under international law. That is why such crimes should not go unpunished.

        Peaceful co-existence is not possible between the violators and the victims. From the viewpoints of restorative justice even after so many years such trial should be held. 

        Holding of such trial also deserves significance for the sake of revival of the spirit of liberation war and the ideals for which the people fought in 1971. To get relief of ignominy (we have for not able to punish the committers) such trial is necessary.

        From a sense of deterrence, that is, to create an example for the future violators (holding of trials of) the suspected criminals should be brought to justice.

        In order to show respects to the departed souls of 1971, the trial should take place.

(War Crimes and Genocide 1971: Bringing the Perpetrators of Justice by Dr. Mizanur Rahman and S. M. Masum Billah, published in Bangladesh Genocide 1971 And The Quest Fr Justice).

Newsweek in its 28th June, 1971 issue published a news with the heading “The terrible Blood Bath of

Tikka Khan” in which descriptions of brutality were given with following words: “ Other foreigners, too, were dubious about the atrocities at first, but the endless repetition of stories from different sources confined them. “ I am certain that troops have thrown babies into the air and caught them on their bayonets” says Briton, John Hastings, a Methodist missionary who have lived in Bengal for twenty years

            I am certain that troops have raped girls repeatedly, then  killed them by pushing their bayonets up between their legs”. In the said news item another fact, which goes deep into the heart, was narrated which was “ Another woman, the bones in her upper leg shattered by bullets, cradles an instant in her arms . She had given birth prematurely in a paddy field after she was shot. Yet , holding her newborn child in one hand and pulling herself along with the other she finally reached the border”.  The most brutal armed anti-civilian state machinery in modern times, taking help of Razakars, Al-Badar, Al- shams bahinies committed such genocide.

Pictures of rape committed by brute Pakistani army and their auxiliary forces came out in the light in the interview of Dr. Jefree Davis taken by one Bena De Costa which was translated by Shilabrata

Borman and published in the book MYnZ¨v of Ain –O- Shalish Kendra. Relevant portions of the contents of

the said interview are as follows:

W. †Rwd« †Wwfm

hy×wea¡¯— evsjv‡`‡ki  †¯^”Qv‡mex GKRb Wv³vi    

exYv wW K¯—v

Avwg bvix gyw³‡hv×v, mgvRKgx©, exiv½bv cªgy‡Li mv¶¨rKvi MªnY I Kvwnbx msMªn Kivi GK ch©v‡q bw_c‡Î Wt †Rwd« †Wwfm bv‡g GK wPwKrm‡Ki D‡j−L cvB, whwb 1972 mv‡j hy×wea¡¯— evsjv‡`‡ki KvR K‡i‡Qb| wb‡g¥  Zvi mv¶vrKviwU Zz‡j  †`Iqv n‡jv| GB mv¶vrKv‡ii Askwe‡kl wmWwb‡Z Zvi evwo‡Z  †bqv Ges evwKUv KvQvKvwQ GKwU †i‡¯— vivuq e‡m| GB mv¶vrKv‡i RvwZ MV‡bi Kg©Kv‡Û m¤ú„³  bvix I cyi“‡li Kvwnbx¸‡jv msMªn‡bi cª‡qvRbxqZv ¯cófv‡e dz‡U D‡V‡Q| Avgv‡`i A‡b‡KB GLb m¼xY© ivRbxwZi †eovRv‡j Ave× n‡q Av‡Qb| Avi Gi d‡j BwZnvmwem¥„wZ‡Z Avµvš— n ”Q Avgv‡`i RvZxq eqvb|

cvVK‡`i g‡b ivLv cª‡qvRb, Avgvi cª‡kœi DËi LyuR‡Z wM‡q W. †Wwfm cªvq 32

eQi Av‡MiKvi NUbvewj m¥ib Kivi †Póv KiwQ‡jb| G Kvi‡Y K‡qK ¯nv‡b Zvi Reve

A¯có g‡b n‡Z cv‡i| wmWwb , GbmWe−y , A‡ówjqvi GK  †gwW‡Kj MªvRy‡qU W. †Rwd« †Wwfm 1972 mv‡ji gvP© †_‡K cªvq Qq gvm evsjv‡`‡k KvR K‡i Qb| wZwb B›Uvib¨¨kbvj c−¨vbW  c¨v‡i›UûW , BDGbGdwcG Ges We−y GBPI Gi c„l‡cvlKZvq KvR K‡i‡Qb| m¥„wZPvibvi ïi“‡ZB wZwb Rvbvb, Zvi Kv‡Ri AZ¨vš— ¯úk©KvZi cªK…wZi Kvi‡b †Kvb msMVbB Zv‡K Zv‡`i †jvK wnmv‡e `vex Ki‡Z ivwR wQj bv|

W. †Wwfm m¥„wZPviY Ki‡Z wM‡q e‡jb, cwðg cvwK¯ v—wb ˆmb¨iv Zv‡`i K¨v‡¤ú

ev½vwj †g‡q‡`i ew›` K‡i ivLvi mgq Rb¥v‡bv †hme wkï †eu‡P ‡M‡Q, Zv‡`i‡K wUwK‡q ivLvi †Póv KiwQjvg Avgiv| GQvov Avgv‡`i Ici wb‡`©k wQj, †h mg¯— bvixi å“Y Rb¥Mªn‡Yi Rb¨ ˆZix nq bvB Zv‡`i Mf©cvZ NUv‡bvi †Póv Kiv hv‡Z Zv‡`i‡K †ivMvµvš—

I cywónxb wkïi Rb¥ w`‡Z bv nq| Avi G Kv‡R Avgiv mdj n‡qwQ| GUv wVK †h, wbh©vwZZ †g‡qi msL¨v wQj wecyj| Z‡e Avgiv †mLv‡b †cŠuQv‡bvi Av‡MB A‡bK gwnjv‡K †g‡i

†djv n‡qwQj| A_ev A‡b‡KB Zv‡`i cwiev‡i †diZ cvVv‡bv n‡qwQj| cwiw¯’wZ wQj AvZ¼RbK| Avgiv eySjvg, Avgv‡`i e‡m _vK‡j Pj‡e bv| Kx Kiv hvq †mUv †f‡e †ei

Kivi †Póv KiwQjvg| †mmgq Bsj¨vÛ †_‡KI Av‡iKRb GmwQ‡jb| wKš y — c‡i Avwg Zvi †LvuR nvwi‡q †dwj| cwiw¯’wZUv mwZ¨ exfrm wQj|

cªkœ t Avcwb wK †¯^”Qvcª‡Yvw`Z n‡q †mLv‡b wM‡qwQ‡jb?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v, †¯^”Qvcª‡Yvw`Z n‡qB †MwQ|

cªkœ t GB KvR Kivi B‡”Q Avcbvi †Kb n‡qwQj?

‡Rwd«t  GWfvÝ †cªM‡bwÝ Uvw©g‡bU Kivi †KŠkj Rvbv wQj Avgvi | Avwg g~jZ Bsj¨vÛ

†_‡K †U«wbs  wb‡qwQ| hv †nvK Avwg mvaviš— 30 mßv‡ni wb‡Pi   †cªM‡bwÝ  Uvwg©‡bU KiwQjvg|

 cªkœ t XvKvq †Kv_vq KvR K‡i‡Qb Avcwb?

‡Rwd«t Avwg avbgwÛi  GKwU  wK¬wb‡K KvR K‡iwQ| Ab¨vb¨ kn‡i nvmcvZv‡ji †hme a¡smve‡kl wQj, †m¸‡jv‡ZI Avwg KvR K‡iwQ| Avwg g~jZ hv K‡iwQjvg msL¨v G‡Zv wecyj wQj -- †mme kn‡ii †jvKRb‡K cªwk¶Y w`‡Z ïi“ Kwi| Zviv wKQyUv iß K‡i  †dj‡ZB Avwg c‡ii kn‡ii w`‡K cv evovB|

cªkœ t †iK‡W©i ¯^v‡_© Avcwb `qv K‡i ej‡eb wK, †mLv‡b Avcwb wVK Kx KvR KiwQjvg?

‡Rwd«t Avwg hvIqvi mvgvb¨ Av‡M †mLv‡b GKwU bvix c~Yev©mb msMVb ˆZix Kiv nq| †mwUi `vwq‡Z¡ wQ‡jb wePvicwZ †K,Gg,  †mvenvb| Zviv Mf©eZx© mKj gwnjv‡K GK RvqMvq wbivc‡` ivLvi †Póv KiwQ‡jb Ges hv‡`i †¶‡Î m¤¢e Zv‡`i Mf©cvZ NUv‡bvi e¨e¯nv KiwQ‡jb | Avi hviv mš v— ‡bi Rb¥ w`‡q‡Q Zv‡`i      mš v— b‡`i msMªn K‡i Avgiv B›Uvib¨vkbvj †mvk¨vj mvwf©‡mi (AvBGmGm) nv‡Z Zz‡j w`w”Qjvg ----- | 

cªkœ t ‡mmgq Avcbvi m‡½ Avi Kviv KvR K‡iwQj g‡b Ki‡Z cv‡ib wK?

‡Rwd«t hy‡×vËi cybevm©b †K‡›`ªi cªavb wQ‡jb wePvicwZ †mvenvb| Avi gyj mwµq e¨w³wU wQ‡jb fb mPzK--- wZwb wQ‡jb myBwWk| Zvi bv‡gi cª_g AskwU g‡b Ki‡Z cviwQ bv| Avgvi g‡b nq, Zvi ¯¿xi bvg wQj †gwi| Zviv A_© w`‡q mvnvh¨ K‡iwQ‡jb | ev½vjx Kg©KZ©v‡`i bvg Avwg g‡b Ki‡Z cviwQ bv ----| ZvQvov †KD †Zv GB BwZnvm Rvb‡Z KLbI AvMªn cªKvk K‡iwb--- |

cªkœ t G K_v †Kb g‡b n‡q‡Q Avcbvi ?

‡Rwd«t Gi KviY Gi m‡½ Mf©cvZ Ges mš v— b `ËK †bqvi welq RwoZ wQj| Av‡iKUv e¨vcvi n‡jv, cwðg cvwK¯ v— b GKwUv KgbI‡qj_fz³ †`k| Avi Gi Kg©KZ©v‡`i mK‡jB weª‡U‡b cªwk¶Ycªvß| GUv e„wUk miKv‡ii Kv‡Q wQj AZ¨vš— weeªZKi GKUv e¨vcvi| cwðg cvwK¯ v— wb Kg©KZ©viv eyS‡Z cviwQj bv G wb‡q G‡Zv ˆn‰P Kiv n‡”Q †Kb| Avwg Zv‡`i A‡b‡Ki m‡½ K_v e‡jwQ| Zviv Kzwgj−vi  GKwU KvivMv‡i e ›` wQj| Lye Ki“Y Ae¯nvq wQj Zviv (nvwm--- ‡hwU Zv‡`i cªvc¨ wQj)| Avi Zviv e‡jwQj, Giv Kx Ki‡Z Pv‡”Q ? Avgv‡`i Kx Kiv DwPr wQj e‡j Giv g‡b K‡i? GUv †Zv hy× †i fvB|

cªkœ t Zviv bvix al©‡Yi e¨vcviUv Kxfv‡e Rv‡qR Kivi  †Póv K‡i‡Q?

‡Rwd«t I‡i evcm ! Zv‡`i Ici wU°v Lv‡bi GK cªKvi Av‡`k ev wb‡`©kB wQj †h, GKRb mv”Pv gymjgvb Zvi evev Qvov meviB  m‡½B jovB Ki‡e| Kv‡RB Zv‡`i hv Ki‡Z n‡e Zv n‡jv h‡ZvUv cviv hvq| †ewkmsL¨vK ev½vjx bvix‡K Mf©eZx Kiv| GUvB wQj Zv‡`i Kv‡Ri ‡cQ‡bi ZI¦| 

cªkœ t †g‡q‡`i Mf©eZx Ki‡Z n‡e †Kb? Gi KviYUv wK Avcbv‡K Zviv e‡j‡Q?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v, e‡j‡Q, (Zviv e‡j‡Q) | Gi d‡j c~e© cvwK¯v— ‡b Ggb GKUv †MvUv cªRb¥ m„wó n‡e, hv‡`i kix‡i eB‡e cwðg cvwK¯ v— wb‡`i i³ Zviv GK_vUvB e‡j‡Q|

cªkœ t cvwK¯ v— wb‡`i AmsL¨ bw_c‡Î GLbI ejv nq, al©‡Yi NUbvi msL¨v AZ¨vš— evwo‡q ejv n‡”Q Avcwb wK Zv‡`i G `vwe mZ¨ g‡b K‡ib?

‡Rwd«t bv, bv, --- Zviv al©Y K‡i‡Q| m¤¢eZ Zviv cªK…ZB h K‡i‡Q , Zvi Zzjbvq A‡bK¸Y KgmsL¨v `vwe Kiv nq| Zviv  †h c×wZ‡Z kni `Lj Ki‡Zv Zvi weeiY  Lye †KŠZzn‡jvÏxcK| Zviv Zv‡`i c`vwZK evwnbx‡K †cQ‡b †i‡L †Mvj›`vR evwnbx‡K mvg‡b wb‡q Avm‡Zv | Zvici nvmcvZvj, ¯‹zj-K‡jR †Mvjv Q~u‡o ¸uwW‡q w`‡Zv| Gi d‡j kn‡i

†b‡g Avm‡Zv Pig wek„sLjv | Avi Zvici c`vwZK evwnbx kn‡i Xz‡K c‡o †g‡q‡`i †e‡Q

†e‡Q Avjv`v Ki‡Zv| wkïiv Qvov †hŠbfv‡e g¨vwPIiW mKj †g‡q‡K Zviv GK‡Î R‡ov

Ki‡Zv| Avi kn‡ii evwK †jvKRb‡K ew›` K‡i †dj‡Zv c`vwZK evwnbxi Ab¨viv| AvIqvgx jx‡Mi m‡½ hy³ mevB‡K ¸wj K‡i †g‡i †djv n‡Zv| Avi Zvici †g‡h‡`i cvnvov w`‡Z K¤úvD‡Û wb‡q G‡m ˆmb¨‡`i gv‡S wewj‡q †`qv n‡Zv| AZ¨vš— RNb¨ GKUv e¨vcvi wQj GUv| we‡k¡i †Kv_vI KLbI Ggb NUbvi bwRi cvIhv hvq bv| ZeyI GgbUvB N‡UwQj|

cªkœ t hy‡×i AwfÁZv wb‡q wK¬wb‡Ki bvix-cyi“l ev †K‡bv mgvRKgx©‡`i I m‡½ †Kv‡bv K_v n‡q‡Q Avcbvi? we‡klZ al©Y wkwe‡ii (†ic K¨v¤ú) †g‡q‡`i AwfÁvZvi e¨vcv‡i ?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v, Avgiv me mgq Gme AwfÁZvi K_v ïbZvg| Zviv †hme NUbvi K_v ej‡Zv

Zvi  †Kv‡bv †Kv‡bvUv wQj ixwZg‡Zv wng Kiv| wekvj‡`nx cvwK¯ v— bx ˆmb¨‡`i Øviv evievi awl©Z nIqvi Kvwnbx ï‡bwQ Avgiv| Avcwb wek¡vm Ki‡Z cvi‡eb bv, †KD G ai‡bi

KvR Ki‡Z cv‡i| abx Ges my›`ix †g‡q‡`i‡K Awdmvi‡`i Rb¨ †i‡L †`qv n‡Zv Avi evwK‡`i Abvvb¨ i¨v‡¼i ˆmb¨‡`i g‡a¨ e›Ub K‡i †`qv n‡Zv| Avi †g‡q‡`i `vi“Y K†ó  †d‡j †`qv n‡Zv| Zv‡`i‡K ch©vß  †L‡Z †`qv n‡Zv bv| Amy¯n n‡q co‡j Zv‡`i wPwKrmv †`qv n‡Zv bv| A‡b‡KB K¨v‡¤úi g‡a¨ gviv †M‡Q| Gme NUbv mn‡R †KD wek¡vm KiwQj bv| G¸‡jv †h mwZ¨ NU‡Z cv‡i, GUv wek¡vm Ki‡Z †KD ivwR wQj bv| wKš y — G msµvš— Z_¨¸‡jvB cªgvY Ki‡Q †h, NUbv¸‡jv mwZ¨|

cªkœ t n¨vu , Avcbvi K_v Avwg eyS‡Z cviwQ| Avcwb Rv‡bb MZ Pvi eQi a‡i Avwg wb‡RI Gme †g‡q‡K Luy‡R †ei Kivi †Póv KiwQ| Zviv msL¨vq wecyj| Z ‡`i A‡bK‡KB cvIqv hvIqvi K_v wKš‘ Avwg wb‡R LyeB KgmsL¨K †g‡q‡K L~u‡R †c‡qwQ|

‡Rwd«t nu¨v, A‡b‡KB A¯^xKvi K‡i‡Q| Zviv e¨vcviUv G‡Kev‡i †P‡c †M‡Q| GgbUv nq|

cªkœ thy‡×i ciciB cwiw¯’wZ wK wKQyUv wfbœ wQj? †KD wK Zvi AwfÁZv Rvwb‡q‡Q?

‡Rwd«t †KD G wel‡q K_v ej‡Z ivwR wQj bv | Avcwb cª‡kœi ci cªkœ K‡i hv‡eb, wKš— †Kv‡bv DËi cv‡eb bv| gv‡S gv‡S GgbI n‡q‡Q , Zviv m¥„w nvwi‡q †d‡j‡Q| cyi“livI †KD G wel‡q GK`g K_v ej‡Z ivwR wQj bv| †Kbbv Zv‡`i g‡Z, †g‡qiv Kjw¼Z n‡q †M‡Q| Avi evsjv‡`‡k †g‡q‡`i gh©`v A‡bK Kg, GUvI wVK| GiKg Ae¯nvq Zviv m¤£g nviv‡j Zv‡`i †Kv‡bv gh©`vB Avi Aewkó _v‡K bv| Zv‡`i ZLb evuPv givi †Kv‡bv ZdvZ _v‡K bv| Avi cyi“liv Zv‡`i †g‡i †d‡j‡Q| Avwg wek¡m Ki‡Z cviwQjvg bv| cwðgv we‡k¡ GgbUv KíbvB Kiv hvq bv|

cªkœ t Avcwb wbðq evsjv ej‡Z cvi‡Zb bv| Avcbvi c‡¶ g by li m‡½ K_v ej‡Z wK †eM †c‡Z n‡Zv?

‡Rwd«t bv| Avgvi GKRb †`vfvlx wQ‡jb| GKRb cyi“l †`vfvlx| Zviv mevB Lye `ª“Z msMwVZ n‡q wM‡qwQj| Zviv Avgv‡K GKUv j¨vÛ‡ivfvi †hvMvo K‡i w`j| GKRb WªvBfvi Avi GKRb wdì Awdmvi †c‡qwQjvg Avwg| 62IB wdì Awdmvi Avgvi †`vfvlxi KvR K‡i w`‡Zb| WªvBfv‡ii bvg wQj ggZvR | Z‡e wdì Awdmv‡ii bvg Ki‡Z cviwQ bv| wZwb GKRb miKvix PvKz‡i wQ‡jb| miKvwi Kg©KZ©v‡`i AwaKvskB  Bs‡iRx‡Z K_v ej‡Z cvi‡Zb| wZDwbwkqvq †h Kó Ki‡Z n‡q‡Q, GLv‡b †mUv nqwb (W. †Wwfm wZDwbwkqvq RbmsL¨v Kvh©µ‡gi KvR K‡i‡Qb)|

cªkœ t †g‡qiv †Kb G e¨vcv‡i bxie wQj, Avcbvi Kx g‡b nq?

‡Rwd«t AvZ‡¼ | Zviv mevB `yt¯^cœ †`L‡Zv| †mB AvZ¼ KL‡bvB KvwU‡q IVv hvq bv| AwaKvs‡kiB fxlb m èvqweK D‡ØM †`Lv †`q| Avi ZvQvov Avgiv wQjvg we‡`wk| Zviv †Kv‡bv we‡`wk‡K wek¡vm Ki‡Z cviwQj bv | Zv‡`i‡K wb‡q Avgiv Kx Ki‡Z hvw”Q Zviv Rvb‡Zv bv---

cªkœ t al©Y wkwei¸‡jv †hLv‡b wQj, †miKg †Kv‡bv Rvq?Mvq wK Avcwb †M‡Qb?

‡Rwd«t al©Y wkwei¸‡jv Z‡Zvw`‡b Zz‡j †`qv n‡qwQj Ges cbevm©b m MVb †mLvb †_‡K †g‡q‡`i‡K Zv‡`i wbR wbR Mªvg I kn‡i cvwV‡q †`qvi †Póv KiwQj| Z‡e A‡bK ‡¶‡Î †hUv N‡U‡Q †h, ¯¿x‡K ¯^vgxi Kv‡Q †diZ cvVv‡bvi ci ¯^ gx ¯¿x‡K †g‡i †d‡j| †Kbbv ¯¿x Zvi m¤£g nvwi‡q‡Q| A‡bK †¶‡Î Kx N‡U‡Q RvbviI †Póv Ki‡Zv bv Zviv | †`‡ki cªZ¨š— A‡j, hgybv b`x‡Z jvk fvm‡Z †`Lv †M‡Q| G NUbvwU BD‡iv‡c D‡ØM m„wó K‡iwQj| wKš‘ G¸‡jv Ae¨vnZ wQj|

cªkœ t ‡h me †g‡qiv K_v wK Avcbvi g‡b Av‡Q? K‡ZvR‡bi Mf©cvZ NwUqv‡Qb Avcwb? ‡Rwd«t mwVK cwimsL¨vb m¥ib Kiv KwVb| Z‡e w`‡b cªvq GKk Rb K‡i|

cªkœ t XvKvq, bv †`‡ki Ab¨vb¨ As‡k?

‡Rwd«t msL¨v D‡j−L Kiv KwVb| XvKvq M‡o w`‡b GKk RbK‡i, Avi †`‡ki Ab¨Î msLvvUv IVvbvgv K‡i‡Q| †KD †KD KjKvZvq wM‡qwQj----

cªkœ t kZKiv nv‡i ej‡Z cvi‡eb? †hgb ai“Y †kªbxwfwËK, ag© fwËK w`K †_‡K KZRb †g‡qi †`Lv †c‡q‡Qb Avcwb?

‡Rwd«t me †kªbxi †g‡qB wQj| Zv‡`i ag© wb‡q Avgv‡`i gv_ve¨v_¨v wQj bv---Avgiv ïay Zv‡`i wec` †_‡K D×vi Kivi †Póv K‡iwQ| Z‡e †gv‡Ui Ici ejv hvq, hviv abx Zviv hy‡×i ciciB KjvKvZv P‡j wM‡q Mf©cvZ NUv‡Z †c‡iwQj|

cªkœ t Mf©cvZ NUv‡Z ivwR wKbv †g‡q‡`i Kv‡Q †mUv wK Rvb Z PvIqv n‡Zv? Zv‡`i B”Qv- Awb”Qvi e¨vcvi wQj wK?

‡Rwd«t n¨uv , Aek¨B | Avgvi h‡ZvRb †g‡q †c‡qwQjvgZv‡`i mevB Mf©cvZ NUv‡Z

†P‡qwQj| G‡Z ivwR bq| Ggb KvD‡K Avgiv cvBwb| Ab¨w`‡K †hme †g‡q mš v— ‡bi Rb¥ w`‡qwQj, Zviv Zv‡`i mš v— b‡K cyY©ev©mb msMV‡bi nv‡Z Zz‡j w`‡qwQj| Avi Gfv‡e Gme wkï AvBGmG‡mi Kv‡Q Ges Ab¨vb¨ †`‡k †cŠu‡Q‡Q| Z‡e Zviv msL¨vq K‡Zv Avgvi ‡Kv‡bv avibv †bB|

cªkœ t G e¨vcv‡i wek` cªkœ Kivq Avwg Avcbvi Kv‡Q ¶gv †P‡q wbw”Q | Z‡e cyY©evmb Kg©Kv‡Û Zv‡`i gZvgZ ev B”Qv-Awb”Qvi my‡hvM ivLv  n‡qwQj wKbv G e¨vcv‡i Avgvi mwZ¨Kvi †KŠZznj i‡q‡Q| Mf~cvZ NUv‡bvi mgq †Kv‡bv gwnjv Kvu`wQj ev gvbwmKfv‡e †f‡½ c‡owQj Ggb †Kv‡bv NUbv wK g‡b Ki‡Z cv‡ib?

‡Rwd«t bv Zv‡`i †KDB Kv‡`bx| Zviv LyeB k³g‡bi cwiPq w`‡qwQj| Zviv G‡Kev‡iB KvbœvKvwU K‡iwb| Zviv G‡Kev‡i kvš— †_‡K‡Q| I, Ck¡i‡K aY¨ev`| Gi d‡j Avgv‡`i c‡¶ KvRUv mnR n‡qwQj|

cªkœ t Avcwb e‡j‡Qb, †hme gwnjv Mf©cvZ NUv‡Z ivwR wQ‡jb, Avcwb ïay Zv‡`iB wPwKrmv w`‡q‡Qb| Avwg Avgvi  †m cªm‡½  wd‡i  †h‡Z PvB| gwnjviv  Zv‡`i mg¥wZ Kv‡K Rvwb‡qwQj? mswk−ó Wv³vi‡`i, bvm©‡`i, mgvR-Kgx©‡`i?

 ‡Rwd«t I nu¨v|

cªkœ t Zv‡`i wK †Kv‡bv KvM‡R ¯^v¶i Ki‡Z n‡q‡Q?

‡Rwd« t Avgvi g‡b nq Zv‡`i‡K mg¥wZm~PK GKUv WKy‡g›U ¯^v¶i Ki‡Z n‡qwQj| Z‡e Avwg wbwðZ bB| miKvi c‡iv¶fv‡e e¨vcviUv Av‡qvRb K‡iwQj| GUvi Av‡qvRb gyjZ K‡iwQj c~Yev©mb msMVb Ges Avi †hme gwnjv Zv‡`i mvnvh¨ K‡iwQj Z iv| Z‡e GUv wbwðZ †h,

hviv Mf©cvZ NUv‡Z ivwR wQj bv, Zviv †KD wK¬wb‡Ki Kv‡Q †Nu‡lwb| Kv‡RB GUv †Kv‡bv Bmy¨ wQj bv|

cªkœ t Avcwb wK †kl ch©š— Mf©cvZ NwU‡q‡Qb ? †mUv †Zv Mf©avi‡Yi GKUv AMªmi ch©¨q

nIqvi K_v, ZvB bv?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v , †mLv‡b Avgvi Qq gv‡mi Ae¯nvbKv‡j cy‡iv mgqUvB Avwg Mf©cvZ NwU‡qwQ | gwnjviv Ggb Zxeª Acywó‡Z fzMwQj †h, 40 mßv‡ni å“Y cªvq 18 mßv‡ni GKwU 哇bi

mgvb n‡Zv|

cªkœ t bvix‡`i †Kv‡bviKg civgk© †`qv n‡Zv wKbv g‡b Ki‡Z cv‡ib?

‡Rwd«t civgk©? cyYev©mb msMVb Zv w`‡Zv| †mLv‡b bvix mgvRKgx©iv Zv‡`i m‡½ K_v ej‡Zb| Avgvi g‡b nq bv Zv‡Z Zv‡`i Lye GKUv jvf n‡Zv| ‡Kbb Zviv mevB wQj Acywó‡Z †fvMv| †hŠb‡ivM I AcywóRwbZ †ivMevjvB‡q Avµvš— wQj Zviv | Lye fq¼i cwiw¯’wZ wQj †mUv | †`‡k ZLb Gme mgm¨v †gvKvwejvi g‡Zv m¤ú` , JlacÎ ev my‡hvM myweav G‡Kev‡iB wQj bv| mxwgZ m¤ú` hvwQj ZvI hy×vnZ ˆmb¨‡`i Rb¨ ivLv wQj|

†g‡q‡`i Rb¨ wKQyB Aewkó wQj bv| Avgv‡`i wb‡R‡`i óvd wb‡q Avm‡Z n‡qwQj|

cªkœ t Avcbviv mieivn †Kv_v †_‡K †c‡Zb ? †m¸‡jv wK h‡_ó wQj?

‡Rwd«t Bsj¨vÛ  †_‡K | Avgv‡K Avgvi wb‡Ri cª‡qvRbxq wRwbmcÎ wb‡q Avm‡Z ejv n‡qwQj| GQvov Avwg `yB †mU hš¿cvwZ I Gw›Uev‡qwUK m‡½ wb‡qwQjvg|

cªkœ t Qqgvm a‡i Mf©cvZ NUv‡bvi Kv‡R Avcwb gvÎ `yB †mU hš¿cvwZ e¨envi K‡iwQ‡jb?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v | ¯’vbxq nvmcvZv‡ji hš¿cvwZM‡vj me aesm K‡i †djv n‡qwQj| IlyacÎ hv

Aewkó wQj, Zvi meB wQj hy×vnZ‡`i Rb¨|

cªkœ t ‡mB hš¿cvwZMy‡jvwK kvixwiKfv‡e wbivc` wQj?

‡Rwd«t n¨uv | we‡klÁ Aí eqmx‡`i †¶‡Î †mme †ivMevjvB kix‡i wb‡q mš v— b Rb¥ †`qvi †P‡q GUvB eis wbivc` wQj|

cªkœ t Avcwb wK Mf©cvZ I `ËK MªnY Dfq Kg©Kv‡Ûi m‡½B hy³ wQ‡jb?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v| Z‡e `ËK Kg©m~Pxi †¶‡Î ïay wkï‡`i AvBGmG‡mi nv‡Z Zz‡j †`qv Avgvi

KvR wQj| Mf©cvZ NUv‡bv I Rb¥ †bIqv wkïi msL¨v wQj wecyj| hy‡×i mgq †g‡q‡`i

‡hme mvgwiK K¤úvD‡Û ivLv n‡qwQj, †m¸‡jvi AvKvi wbðqB wekvj wQj| Z‡e Avwg †mLv‡b hvIqvi Av‡MB †m¸‡jv eÜ K‡I ‡`qv n‡qwQj|

cªkœ t XvKv kn‡ii evB‡i †hme RvqMvq Avcwb †M‡Qb †m¸‡jvi Ae¯nv ‡Kgb wQj? †mLv‡b

Kx ai‡Yi my‡hvM- myweav Avcbviv †c‡q‡Qb| ?

‡Rwd«t nvmcvZvj Avi cybev©mb msMVb --- †mUvi bvg Kx wQj, Avwg g‡b Ki‡Z cviwQ bv| m¤¢eZ  evsjv‡`k RvZxq bvix cybe©vmb msMVb ev G RvZxq  wKQy | †ewki fvM eo †K›`ª¸‡jvi GivB KvR KiwQj | Avgvi hvIqvi Av‡M †mLv‡b Lye AímsL¨vK Mf©cvZ Kiv n‡qwQj| †Kbbv †KD †mUv Ki‡Z Pvw”Qj bv | nvmcvZv‡ji †gwWK¨vj óvd‡`i †ewki fvM

g‡b KiwQj GUv †e-AvBbx KvR|hv †nvK, Avgvi KvR Aby‡gv`b K‡i Avwg ¯^ivó mwPe ie †PŠayixi KvQ †_‡K GKwU  wPwV †c‡qwQjvg| †mLv‡b ejv n‡qwQj , Avwg hv Ki‡Z Pvw”Q, Zv AvBbwm× Ges Zviv meiKg mvnvh¨ w`‡Z ivwR Av‡Qb| wPwVUv Avwg GLb Avi Luy‡R †ei Ki‡Z cvi‡ev bv| GUv m¤¢eZ GLv‡bB †Kv_vI Av‡Q--- evsjv‡`k msµvš— cªPzi KvMRcÎ Rwg‡q †i‡LwQ Avwg---- G¸‡jv‡K Avgvi ¸i“Z¡c~Y©  ‡b n‡q‡Q, †Kbbv Avgvi g‡b n‡q‡Q, evsjv‡`‡k hv †`‡LwQ †ZgbUv c„w_exi Avi †Kv_vI NU‡Z †`L‡ev bv Avwg| Kv‡RB  Avwg Gme KvMRcÎ †i‡L w`‡qwQ| †mmgq G¸‡jv LyeB fq¼i  g‡b nw”Qj| 

cªkœ t †g‡q‡`i mevB wK Mf©cvZ Kiv‡Z ev mš v— b‡K `ËK w`‡Z ivwR n‡q‡Q?

‡KD wK mš v— b‡K †i‡L w`‡Z Pvqwb?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v --- `y‡qKRb †P‡q‡Q---

cªkœ t Avcwb wK Rv‡bb Zv‡`i fv‡M¨ Kx N‡UwQj ?

‡Rwd«t Avgvi †Kvb avibv †bB | AvBGmGm †mLv‡b h‡Zvwkï cviv hvq msMªn K‡i‡Q| †Kbbv Av‡gwiKvI cwðg BD‡iv‡c ZLb `ËK †bqvi g‡Zv wkïi Afve †`Lv w`‡qwQj|

Avi Zviv h‡ZvUv cviv hvq †ewkmsL¨K wkï msMªn Kivi  †Póv KiwQj|

cªkœ t B›Uvib¨vkbvj †mvk¨vj mvwf©‡mm ?

‡Rwd«t nu¨v| ms¯nvwU IqvwksUb wWwm wfwËK | `ËK msµvš— cª_g mvwii ms¯nv|

cªkœ t gv‡q‡`‡i Kx n‡Zv ?

‡Rwd«t Mf©cvZ ev mš v— b Rb¥ †`Iqvi ci Zviv wKQyw`b †mLv‡b _vK‡Zv Avi Zvici Îvb cybe©vmb †K‡›`ª wM‡q Avkªq wb‡Zv| Zviv h‡Zvw`b Lywk †mLv‡b _vK‡Z cvi‡Zv | Zvici Zviv bvbviKg †K‡›`ª wM‡q Avkªq wb‡Zv| h‡Zvw`b Lywk †mLv‡b _vK‡Z cvi‡Zv| Zvici Zviv bvbviKg cªwk¶Y Kg©mywP‡Z †hvM w`‡Zv| Avwg Zv‡`i `y‡qKRb  †`‡LwQ| evwbwR¨K wfwËK †cvkvK ˆZix KiwQj Zviv|  XvKv, w`bvRcyi, iscyi †bvqvLvjx‡Z GgbUv †`‡LwQ|

mv¶vrKvi †`Iqvi Rb¨ W. †Wwfm‡K Avgvi Avš w— iK aY¨ev` | Zvui KvQ †_‡K          we`vh  †bqvi Av‡M Avgiv Av‡iKevi Zvui evsjv‡`k md‡ii e¨vcv‡i we¯ v— wiZ Av‡jvPbv K‡iwQ| Avgv‡`i Av‡jvPbvq ¯^vfvweKfv‡eB fwel¨‡Z GKwU hy×vciva UvBey¨bvj MV‡bi m¤¢ve¨Zvi cªm‡½ G‡m c‡o| †Rwd« Avgvi nvZ k³ K‡i a‡i †mwU Zviu ey‡K iv‡Lb| Zvui †Pv‡L Akª“| evsjv‡`k b¨vq wePvi cvIqvi †Póv Ki‡j wZwb Zvi mv‡a¨ mewKQy Ki‡eb e‡j Rvbvb| cªv_wgK c`‡`¶c wn‡m‡e Avwg mwZ¨ Avkv Kwi,GB mv¶vrKvi AvMªnx Mª“c‡K Zvui

Kvwnbx AvbyôvwbKfv‡e wjwce× Ki‡Z DrmvwnZ Ki‡e|Ó

Appellant Mir Quasem Ali, produced exhibit-“B” cªvgvb¨ `wjj- gyw³hy‡×  PÆMªvg  written by Gazi Salauddin and

relied on this book. Since he himself relied on this

book, he could not question the reliability and authencity of the contents of the book. From the

book it appears that the father of the author was killed at Pahartoli slaughter centre in Chittagong.

In the preface of the said book the author stated – “evsjv‡`‡ki gyw³hy‡×i bq gv‡m wÎk jvf ev½vjx knx` nIqv, `yBjv¶ gv- †evb‡K al©Y Kiv Ges ------ ¸wj I RevB K‡i cvwLi gZ nZ¨v K‡i‡Q Acvgi Rb mvavib‡K| Zv‡`i G nZ¨vKvÛ †_‡K †invB cvqwb 90 eQ‡ii e„× †_‡K gv‡qi †Kv‡ji `y‡ai wkïch©š—| Mªv‡gi ci Mªvg AwMœ`» K‡i‡Q| G nZ¨vKv‡Û Zv‡`i‡K mnvqZv K‡i‡Q G †`kxq `vjvj ivRvKvi Avj-e`i, Avj- kvgm, Rvgv‡qZ Bmjvgx gymwjg jxM, †bRvgx Bmjvgx mg_©K ev½vjx bicï I wenvixiv| He added- gyw³hy× PjvKvjxb cvK evwnbx I Zv‡`i †`vki ivRvKvi, Avj-e`i, Avj-kvgm, Rvgvqv‡Z Bmjvgx I wenvixiv †h b„ksm a¡skhÁ Pvwj‡qwQj Zv AvR ev½vwji m¥„wZ †_‡K nvwi‡q †h‡Z e‡m‡Q hvi Ab¨Zg KviY GKw`‡K ¯^vaxbZv we‡ivax P‡µi my‡KŠkj AwfmwÜ, Ab¨w`‡K msi¶‡bi Afve| Ó

The publisher of the book in his comment has said- ÒG‡Z Av‡Q GKvˇi cvwK¯ v— bx nvbv`vi evwnbx I Zv‡`i mn‡hvMx‡`i b„ksm ee©iZv Ges †Mwijv hy‡×i `vwjwjK avivcvZ| Mª‡š’i mKjZ_¨ DcvË ev½vjx RvwZmËvi Avb›` †e`bvi Akª“cvZ|Ó ............ ÒGB eB‡Z PÆMªvg †Rjvq gyw³hy‡×i bq gv‡m PÆMªv‡g Kx Kx N‡UwQj , † v_vq †Kv_vq cvK nvbv`vi evwnbx I Zv‡`i †`vmiiv gyw³‡hv×v I wbixn ev½vjx‡K nZ¨v K‡i‡Q Zv mwbœ‡ewkZ n‡q‡Q|Ó

It appears from this defence document that the author holding research and inquiry over the subject matter for few years found the following places as slaughter centres and concentration camp of Pakistani

army, Badar Bahini and other auxiliary forces who

committed genocide in Chittagong :

“1. Kalurghat Betar Kendra, 2, Shershah Housing Estate, Parbat Rifle Club, behind Dr. Mazhar High School,  Chandmari. 3. Infront of Medical College and behind of Appello Pharmacy, 4.  Nashirabad Housing Society, Road No.2, 5. Between Enam Khar Pahar field and Forest Research Institute, 6.  Infront of the Central Store of Bangladesh Betar Central Store, 7. Nathpara and Abdurpara , South

Kawkhali, 8. Sholoshahar Rail Station , 9. Hill of Probortok Shangha, 10. Panchlaish Police Station 11. In front of Pahartali Eye Hospital , 12. West Rampura (Sabujbagh), 13. Chasma Pahar, Sholoshahar, 14. West Rampura ( Sabujbagh), 15. South Kattoli Jelepara,16. Purba Pahartoli Bhaddya Bhumi (more than 10,000 persons were killed here) 17. Besides of Custom Academy and Chittagong Divisional Stadium , 18. South Kattoli (east side of Rail Line) Sddique Counsiler’s house, 19. East side of City Gate, Dhaka Trunk Road, 20. No.11,  South Kattoli, house of Mohammad Chowdhury, 21. Godown of Leather, Chaktai Khal, 22. Chaktai Khalpar, 23. Middle place of New Market, Ice Factory Road, 24. South Corner of Gulbabahar Hamdu Miah Road, 25. Mohamaya Dalim Bhaban, infront of T &  T Bhaban, 26. Goods Hill, Chittagong, 27. Chittagong Circuit House, 28. Army Camp besides Chittagong Stadium 29. Hotel Dewan, Dewan Hat More, 30. Chandrapura  Rajakar Camp, 31. Hotel Tower, Jamalkhan Torture Cell, 32. C.R.B. Torture Cell, 33. Banglo in front of Hill,  Sarson Road, 34. Chittagong General Post Office, 35. Lalkhan Pahar,36. Al Badar Bahini Camp,Panchlaish, 37. Railway Banglo of Batali Hill, 38. Ispahani Moar ( at present Highway Plaza Bhabon), 39. Tulshi Dham, 40. Lalkhan Bazar, 41. South Bakolia Mozaher Ulum Madrasha, 42. Sowat ship massacre in Karnaphuli river, 43. Eid Ga Radio Store Army Camp, 44.Dampara Police Line, 45. Chittagong Police Line, Old Gate Grave yard, 46. Char Chaktai Khalpar, 47. Jhautala Bihari Colony, 48. Labonghata, Middle place of Sadar Ghat and Majhi Ghat,49. Army Camp of Jamburi Math, 50. Ambagan, Railway Workshop, 51. Pahartoli Hazi Camp Torture Cell, 52. Dewan Hat Civil Godown, 53. Char Chaktai Khalpar, 54. Sulkabahar, Hamdu Miah Road, 55. Doublemooring Navy Camp Club, 56.1 No.1, Jetty Gate Booking Office, 57. Bandor Army Camp, beside of Bandar Police Station, 58. Pakistan Bazar Camp, 59. Chittagong Port,  Jetty No.1 to  no.15, 60. Sadarghat Rajakar Camp ( Torture Cell and Slaughter House), 61. Pahartali Railway School, 62. Railway Safety Tank, 63. Tigerpass Neval Office, 64. Behind of Hazrat Garib Ullah Shah Mazar, 65. House of Saadi, in front of Ambagar School, 66. Hallishahar Bihari Colony, 67. E.P.R. Camp, 68. Semen’s Hostel, 69. Airport Army Camp, 70. Zelepara Baddya Bhumi, 71. Navy Head Quarter, Patenga, 72. Chittagong Dock Yard camp, 73.  South Chittagong Airport, 74. Inside of Padma Oil Company Ltd., 75. Khoiyarchara Purba Pool Moghra, Dr. Ahmed Shobhan Sarak Station Road, Trunk Road, under the bridge of Barotakia Bazar, 76. Zorargonj Baddyabhumi, south east point of Chhuti Kha Digi and South east point of Babu Kha Dighi, 77. Besides of Highlu Pool, south side of Highlu Court, Dumghat Rail Station, 78. Adjacent of Eshakhali Lushakhali Jhulanta Bridge, 79. Middle Mirsharai Sadar Trunk Road and Mirsharai Station Road Uttor Bhalbaria, 80. Jagoth Mallapara, Raozan, 81. 9 No Pahartoli Union , Ward No.2, Unasattarpara, 81. No.9, Pahartoli Union, Ward No.7, Unasattwarpara, 82. Sitakhunda Urban area, Railway Station adjacent to Railway Colony, 83. Sitakunda Urban area Railway Station to Chandranath Mandar Road, Sitamondir, 84. In front of Mahantabari,  Sitakunda Urban area Railway Station to Chandranath Mandari Road, 85. Purba Mondakini, 86. Dewan Nagar,  87. South

Many news item, regarding the genocide committed in Chittagong by brute Pak army and its auxiliary forces namely Al-Badar, Al-Shams, Razakars etc., were published in different news papers in subsequent after 16.12.1971. Two of those news items published were as follows:

‰`wbK evsjv


Avi GK ea¨f~wg PÆMªv‡gi `vgcvov

Rj−v` evwnbx GLv‡b K‡qK nvRvi †jvK nZ¨v K‡i‡Q|

t wbR¯^ cªwZwbwat

Ò PU«Mªvg, 31 †k Rvbyqvix | GB kn‡ii `vgcvovq Mixeyj−vn kvni gvRv‡ii cv‡k GKwU †jvgnl©K ea¨f~wg Avwe¯‹„Z n‡q‡Q| MZ 30‡k gvP© †_‡K wW‡m¤^i cª_g mßvn ch©š— GB ea¨f~wg‡Z ee©i cvK evwnbx cªvq K‡qK nvRvi †jvK‡K nZ¨v K‡i‡Q e‡j Abygvb Kiv n‡”Q| ea¨f~wgi ¯nvbwU Avgv‡K  †`wL‡qwQj Mixeyj−vn kvni gvRv‡ii msjMœ †`vKvb`vi bvwmi Avng`|

MZ 25 †k gvP© †_‡K 16B wW‡m¤^i evsjv‡`k ¯^vaxb bv nIqv ch©š— GB nZ¨vKv‡Ûi †lvj AvbvB wZwb ¯^P‡¶ †`‡L‡Qb| GB `xN© mgq wZwb Zuvi †`vKv‡bB wQ‡jb| bvwmi Avng` Avgv‡K e‡j‡Qb , MZ 30‡k gvP©  †_‡K wW‡m¤^i cª_g mßvn ch©š— AwZwi³ e„wói w`b Qvov cªZ¨n mÜvq Kov wgwjUvix cvnvivq cvuP †_‡K Qq U«vK †evSvB †jvK wb‡q Avmv nZ|

GB nZf¨vM¨‡`i †PvL Kvco w`‡q evuav _vK‡Zv| Zv‡`i ea¨f~wg‡Z bvwg‡q w`‡q U«vK¸wj P‡j †h‡Zv| GB nZfvM¨‡`i ea¨f~wg‡Z jvBb w`‡q ` uo Kwi‡q ¸wj Kiv nZ¨v Kiv n‡Zv| Zvici Ab¨ GK`j wgwjUvix U«vK wb‡q ea¨f~wg‡Z G‡m jvk¸wj U«vK †evSvB K‡i AbÎ mwi‡q wb‡q †hZ| bvwmi Avng` Avgv‡K Av‡iv e‡j‡Qb †h, wbqwgZ GB nZ¨vh‡Ái ïi“‡Z jvk cuyZevi Rb¨ ea¨f~wgi cv‡k GKwU Mfxi MZ© Lbb Kiv nq|

gvÎ K‡qK w`‡b jv‡k GB Mfxi MZ© fwZ© n‡q †M‡j m`¨giv jvk¸wj‡K U«v‡K PwW‡q Ab¨Î mwi‡q †djvi e¨e¯nv Kiv nq| Avgvi Aby‡iv‡a bvwmi Avng¥` GB M‡Z©i gyL †_‡K mvgvb¨ gvwU mwi‡q cvuPwU biKsKvj DVvb| Zvui  g‡Z †mB M‡Z©  Kgc‡¶ cvuP nvRvi biKsKvj i‡q‡Q| GB †jvgnl©K ea¨fzwg‡Z Pvwiw`‡K cvnvo w`‡q †Niv | ea¨f~wgi Pvwiw`‡K wew¶ßfv‡e Qwo‡q i‡q‡Q nZfvM¨‡`i Rvgv-Kvco RyZv cªf…wZ | gvwU‡Z i‡q‡Q Pvc Pvc we¯— i i‡³i `vM hv cªgvb K‡i‡Q †h MZ wW‡m¤^‡ii cª_g w`‡K GLv‡b K‡qKk †jvK‡K nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q|

ea¨f~wgi cv‡k nvuUvi mg‡q gvwU‡Z Avwg †MvUv `k my¨U I †`L‡Z †c‡qwQ| G‡Z cªgvwYZ n‡”Q †h, †ijI‡q ‡cvU© U«vó Ges Ab¨vb¨ Awd‡mi †h me nZfvM¨ Awdmvi wbu‡LvR i‡q‡Qb, Zvu‡`i  A‡bK‡KB  GB ea¨f~wg‡Z nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q| bvwmi Avng‡`i g‡Z AZ¨vPv‡ii Kv‡jv w`b¸‡jv‡Z ee©i cvKevwnbx GB ea¨f~wg‡Z K‡qK nvRvi †jvK‡K nZ¨v K‡i‡Q| wZwb e‡j‡Qb †h,wbqwgZ GB nZ¨vh‡Ái ïi“‡Z †PvL evuav Ae¯nvq ea¨f~wg‡Z Avbv GK`j †jvK‡K ¸wj K‡i nZ¨v Ki‡j ¸wji AvIqv‡R nZfvM¨‡`i jvBb K‡i `vuov‡bv Ab¨`j g„Zz¨f‡q wPrKvi Ki‡Zv e‡j c‡i ivB‡d‡j mvB‡jÝvi jvwM‡q ¸wj K‡i gvivi c×wZ cªewZ©Z nq|

wbqwgZ GB †jvgnl©K nZ¨vKv‡Ûi AviI `yBRb mv¶x cvIqv ‡M‡Q|Ó

PÆMªv‡gi 20wU ea¨f~wg‡Z ev½vjx wbaYhÁ P‡j‡Q

t c~e©‡`k cªwZwbwat

PU«Mªvg, 12B Rvbyqvix | -PÆMªvg kni I kniZjx GjvKv m‡gZ †Rj i Av‡iv 9wU _vbv‡Z nvbv`vi Lvb †mbviv me©‡gvU 20wU ea¨f~wg‡Z ev½vjx wbaYhÁ Abyôvb Pvwj‡q‡Q| kni I kniZjx GjvKvi 10wU ea¨fzwgi g‡a¨ AvUwU‡Z M‡o cvuP nvRvi K‡i ev½vjx‡K nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q e‡j AbygwZ n‡”Q|

GQvov †cvU© GjvKv Ges †bfx e¨vivK GjvKv‡Z my`xN© 9 gvme¨vcx gvbyl‡K nZ¨v K‡i wK nv‡i KY©dzwj b`x‡Z fvwm‡q †`qv n‡q‡Q , Zvi †Kvb nw`mI †ei Kiv m¤¢e bq| PÆMªvg kni I kniZjx GjvKvi 10wU Ges Mªvg A‡ji †MvUv cvu‡PK ea¨f~wg BwZg‡a¨ Avwg Ny‡i †`‡LwQ|

Gme ea¨f~wg ev½vjx nZ¨vi mwVK msL¨v nq‡Zv cvIqv hv‡e bv, wKš‘ GL‡bv miKvi hw` e¨vcK AbymÜvb I Z_¨ msMª‡ni Rb¨ GwM‡q Av‡mb Z‡e nZ¨vh‡Ái e¨vcKZvmn GKUv AvbygvwbK msL¨vI wbb©q K‡iZ cvi‡eb e‡j wek¡vm | †Kvb †Kvb gnj PÆMªv‡g wbnZ †jv‡Ki msL¨v 1 jvL n‡e e‡j Abygvb Ki‡Qb|

wKš‘ Avgvi g‡b nq, wewfbœ _vbvmn I msL¨v Aš Z— t wZb jv‡L `vuov‡e| kni I

kniZjxi Avg evMvb, Iqvi‡jm K‡jvbx, †kikvn K‡jvbx I d‡qR †jKmn †MvUv cvnvox GjvKv‡Z GL‡bv 20 †_‡K 25 nvRvi ev½vjxi gv_vi Lywj cvIqv hv‡e| GQvovI i‡q‡Q Pvu`MvI, jvjLvb evRvi, nvwjkni, KvjyiNvU I †cvU© K‡jvbx BZ¨vw` ea¨fzwg| PÆMªvg K¨v›Ub‡g›U I mvwK©U nvD‡mI nvRvi nvRvi †jvK‡K a‡i wb‡q nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q|

Mªvgv‡j wg‡ik¡ivB I mxZvKz‡Ûi cvnvo, ivRDRvb, cwUqv mvZKvwbqv Ges evukLvjxi ebv‡ji I nvRvi nvRvi ev½vjx‡K nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q| †emiKvix D‡`¨‡M mg¯— GjvKvq wi‡cvU© msMªn A‡bKUv KwVb KvR| Avgvi e¨w³MZ AwfÁZv Abyhvqx mviv PÆMªv‡g †Rjv‡Z wZb jvL ev½vjx‡K nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q|

wewfbœ ea¨f~wg‡Z Av‡Rv biKsKvj BZ¯ Z— t wew¶ß Ae¯nvq cvIqv hv‡”Q| kn‡ii Iqvi‡jm K‡jvbx, SvDZjv I bvwQivev‡`i cvnvox GvjvKv¸‡jv‡Z jyKvwqZ biKsKv‡ji Aw¯ Z— ¡ Av‡Rv cvIqv hv‡e| BwZg‡a¨ SvDZjv GjvKvi wewfbœ †mcwUK U¨v¼, cvnvox †Svc Sv‡oi g‡a¨ A‡bK¸‡jv KsKvj †`L‡Z †c‡qwQ|

mxZvKz‡Ûi wkebv_ cvnv‡o K‡qK nvRvi ev½vjx‡K nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q| wgi‡k¡ivB‡qi †RviviMÁ Ges Iqvi‡jm GjvKv‡Z gvbyl R‡en Kivi ¯’vqx‡K›`ª ¯’vcb Kiv n‡qwQj| iv¯ v— i U«vK, evm Ges †U«b †_‡K nvRvi nvRvi †jvK‡K a‡i G‡b AvUK K‡i ivLv n‡Zv Ges cªwZw`b 50 Rb A_ev 100 Rb K‡I nZ¨v Kiv n‡Zv|

G mg¯— GjvKv‡Z AmsL¨ Kei Av‡Rv †`L‡Z cvIqv hvq| gvby‡li cwiwnZ Kvco- †Pvco, RyZv m¨v‡Ûj BZ¨vw`I GLv‡b c‡o Av‡Q| ¯nvbxq Rbmvavi‡bi avibv g‡Z ïay wgi‡k¡ivB I mxZvKz‡Ûi ea¨f~wg¸‡jv‡Z 15 †_‡K 25 nvRvi †jvK‡K nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q|

G Qvov ivDRvb, cwUqv I evukLvjx BZ¨vw` _vbv‡ZI cªvq Abyi“cnv‡i MYnZ¨v Pvjv‡bv


Those  are few instances out of  thousands brutality committed by the Pak army with the active support and participation of the local auxiliary forces started on the night of March 25,1971, which were acts of treachery unparalled in contemporary history, a programme of calculated genocide. From the above stated news items, statements, press releases and articles there is was no doubt to hold the view that it was a widespread and systematic attacks against civilian population. There is no reasons to believe that the appellant had no knowledge about the genocide and atrocities committed by Pakistani army. The appellant, without standing besides the helpless unfortunate  people of his motherland, involved himself with the atrocities and brutalities as deposed by the P.Ws. 1,2, 3,4,5, 6,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 , 18, 19 and 20. The oral and documentary evidence clearly show that he participated, instigated, suggested, aided, provoked

the Pak army and also involved in abduction, torturing and killing of unarmed civilians which were crimes against humanity.

Dalim Hotel : torture cell

Material exhibit VI is a book named  Ò‡mB mgq Avb›` †e`bvqÓ written by Advocate Shafiul Alam who, in an article,  Ò`yt¯^‡cœ©i bi‡K †nv‡Uj WvwjgÓ, had given discriptions about the brutality committed in the Dalim Hotel. Mr. Khandaker Mahbub Hossain, learned Counsel for the appellant in course his submission admitted that Advocate Shafiul Alam was well-known Advocate of Chittagong Bar Association and he was a man of integrity. Advocate Shafiul Alam  in the said article, published in the book Ò1971 fqven AwfÁZvÓ edited

by Rashid Haider in 1989 and in the Òˆ`wbK mycªfvZ evsjv‡`kÓ, had given descriptions of the atrocities committed

in Hotel Dalim which are as follows:

`yt¯^‡cœi bi‡K t †nv‡Uj Wvwjg

Ò‡mw`bwU wQj mvZv‡k b‡f¤^i 71| mܨv †_‡KB kn‡i KviwdD| Avgvi Avkªq evwo‡Z M„nKZ©vi mv‡_ †iwWI ïbwQjvg|

miKvix wb‡`©kvewj cªPvi nw”Qjt AvBb nv‡Z wbI bv ; c‡ivqvbv Qvov KvD‡K †MªdZvi Ki‡e bv; a„Z `y¯K…ZKvix‡`i _vbvq †mvc©` Ki BZ¨vw`| fvewQjvg, KZ wg_¨v Amvi G Dw³¸‡jv| nVvr

Kovbvovq kã ï‡b M„nKZ©v `iRv Ly‡j w`‡jb| Avi Agwb GK`j †jvK ûogywo‡q N‡i Xz‡K coj|

mK‡ji nv‡Z ZvK Kiv Av‡Mœqv¯G| bvK-gyL Kv‡jv Kvc‡o XvKv| m`‡c© AvZ¥cwiwPwZ nvKj; Avgiv e`ievwnbxi †jvK, bovPov Ki‡e bv †KD| jvBb n‡q `uvwo‡q bvg ejvi wb‡`©k Kij| Avgvi bvg

ej‡ZB bvK gyL XvKv Db¥xwjZ †Pv‡Li A¯Gavix `j‡bZv ejjt †Zvg ‡K †MªdZvi Kiv n‡jv| miKvix wb‡`©‡ki D‡j−L K‡i Avgvi †MªdZvwi c‡ivqvbv †`L‡Z PvBjvg| ejjt Avgv‡`i Ime jv‡M

bv| Avm‡jB jvM‡Zv bv; Av‡Rv jv‡M bv| GL‡bv Zviv hy×iZ, Av‡Rv nv‡Z †mB civwRZ A¯G|

AZtci `j‡bZv Avgvi nvZ †PvL †e‡a †Kvg‡i iwk jvMv‡Z ûKzg w`j| wKš‘ nVvr †`wL, Avgvi M„nKZ©v †m A¯Gavixi mvg‡b †`Š‡o G‡m ej‡Q, bv, I‡K Avgvi evwo †_‡K wb‡Z †`‡ev bv| Avwg Rvwb, e`ievwnbx gvbyl Lyb K‡i| †Zvgiv Z`š— K‡iv , I †Kvb `y¯K…ZKvix bq| `j‡bZv ivMZ¯e‡i Zv‡KI †MªdZvi Ki‡Z wb‡`©k Ki‡jv, Avi Agwb `yRb †jvK G‡m Zvi †Kvg‡i iwk cwi‡q w`j|

Avwg †Rvi cªwZev` Rvbvjvg, †Zvgiv Avgv‡K wb‡Z G‡mQ; Avwg †Zv hvw”Q| Zuv‡K †Q‡o `vI, bqZ GK cvI boe bv Avwg| †Kvb 哇¶c bv K‡i av°v‡Z av°v‡Z iv¯Z q wb‡q G‡jv| †mLv‡b Zv‡`i KÕRb cwiwPZ †jvK| we¤ZvwiZ cwiPq Rvbvevi ci Iiv Avgvi M„nKZ©v‡K †Q‡o w`j| AwZkq gnr n“`‡qi AwaKvix lv‡Uva© m`vnvm¨gq G i“Mœ gvbylwU wQ‡jb Avg„Zz¨ ALÛ cvwK¯nv‡b wek¡vmx| wKš‘ Ab¨vq evovevwoi mv‡_ Rxe‡b Av‡cvm K‡ib wb KL‡bv; ‡mw`bI bv| K‡Zv bv gyw³‡mbv Áv‡Z, AÁv‡Z G evwo‡Z Zuvi †mèngq AvbyK~‡j¨ kw³ mÂq K‡iwQ‡jv †mw`b| wZwb AvR †e‡P †bB| wKš‘ Avgvi me‡P‡q Av`‡ii gvbyl giûg ˆmq` gCbDÏxb †nvmvBb wPiw`b †e‡P _vK‡e Avgvi ü`‡q , Avgvi ¯gi‡Y|

iv¯Zvq bvg‡ZB Iiv Avgvi †PvL `y‡Uv Kv‡jv Kvc‡oi k³ AvUzwb‡Z †eu‡a, nvZ `y‡UvI †cQb w`‡K gy‡o iwk w`‡q †eu‡a †djj| K'wgwbU nuvU‡ZB †cŠ‡Q †Mjvg Mš ‡— e¨| eySjvg, Avgv‡`i cvovi

†kl cªv‡š i— †nv‡Uj Wvwjg; GLb e`i evwnbxi wbh©vZb wkwei| wZbZjvq| eviv›`vi gvSvgvwS †cŠQy‡ZB weKU ee©i ¯^‡i †K GKRb †PuwP‡q DVj ; në| Avwg `vwo‡q †Mjvg| mevB Pj‡b ej‡b mewKQy‡Z mvgwiK; K_vevZ©vq D`y© Bs‡iwRi e¨enviB †ewk| nVvr `iRv †Lvjvi kã †cjvg| `ycv †fZ‡i w`‡ZB nVvr wc‡V ey‡Ui AvNv‡Z ûgwo †L‡q N‡ii †g‡Sq jywU‡q cojvg| g‡b n‡jv, Dcweó

kvwqZ KwZcq gvbyl †hb hš¿Yvf‡i nVvr KvZ‡i DVj| gy‡L Mig i³ cªevn Abyfe Kijvg| `uvZ

†f‡O‡Q, bqZ wRe †K‡U‡Q| `iRv eÜ nIqvi mv‡_ mv‡_B †K GKRb wR‡Ám Kij, †K Zzwg fvB?

bvg ej‡ZB `yRb Rwo‡q ai‡jv ¯^‡mè‡n| Giv Avgvi AwZ wbK‡Ui gyw³‡hv×v, RvnvsMxi Avi QvbvDj−vn †PŠayix| Avgv‡K †`qv‡ji mv‡_ †Vm w`‡q ewm‡q w`j Iiv | nvZ-†PvL Avgvi ZL‡bv evav|

Avi mK‡jiI ZvB| Ggb wK c‡b‡iv w`b Av‡Mi †jvK‡`iI; GUvB GLvbKvi wbqg| mK‡j Rvb‡Z D`Mªxe evB‡ii Ae¯nv †Kgb, hy‡×i Ae¯nv, Kxfv‡e aiv cojvg BZ¨vw`| Avevi nVvr ey‡Ui AvIqvR Kv‡b G‡jv| g‡b n‡jv †ek KRb µgk wbKUZi n‡”Q| †mw›U« `iRv Ly‡j nuvK w`‡jv; Lvb mv‡ne G‡m‡Q, mK‡j D‡V `uvovI| evB‡i _vK‡Z ï‡bwQjvg G Lv mv‡ne fqvj wbôzi kw³ai GK

†jvK| GLvbKvi m`©vi| cª_‡g, bvg avg Avi wKQy mvaviY †Mv‡Qi i RwbwZi K_v wR‡Ám Kij| g‡b

n‡jv †K †hb wjLwQ‡jv Gme| nVvr †fswP D”Pvi‡Y Lvb mv‡ne ej‡jvt ÒRq evsjv e‡jv bv?Ó

ejjvg, †m‡Zv mK‡jB ej‡Q| Avi Agwb gy‡L G‡m jvMj GK Zxeª Nywl| Zvici, AK_¨ MvjvMvj,

Avi Pviw`K †_‡K †ek KRb mgvb Zv‡j B”Qvg‡Zv mviv Mv‡q m‡Rv‡i jvw_ Nywl †g‡i Pjj| eySjvg,

`vZ †f‡O‡Q Avi bvK w`‡q i³ Mwo‡q co‡Q| Amn¨ AvNv‡Zi †Zv‡o †g‡Sq c‡o †Mjvg| hš¿Yvq

nVvr Dn Avj−vn kã K‡i DVjvg| Avi Agwb gy‡L m‡Rv‡i AvNvZ †n‡b ejjt Òkvjv, †jwbb Avi

gvI †m Zzs ej- Avj−v- bqÓ| gvÎv †hb µgk evoj| wbh©vZ‡bi K‡Zv bv Awfbe Kvq`v‡KŠkj |

Zvici wKQyB Avi g‡b co‡jv bv| nVvr KLb Nyg †f‡½ †M‡jv; VvÛv †g‡Si Ici c‡o AvwQ| mviv

Mv R¡‡i cy‡o hv‡”Q| fxlY cvwbi †Zóv jvM‡Q| IVvi kw³I †bB Avgvi| Avevi †bwZ‡q cojvg|

ïbjvg `~‡i †Kv_vq KvK WvK‡Q; nqZ †fvi Avm‡Q c„w_exi ey‡K|

‡hb †fvi †_‡KB G e`icyix‡Z †m Kx GK nš `— š—- Qy‡UvQywU Pj‡Q| wmwo eviv›`v Qv‡` m‡Rvi Pjb Avi ey‡Ui IVv bvgvi kã| AÜKvi cª‡Kv‡ôi cyi‡bv eÜz‡`i wbKU Gm‡ei bvbv A_© Zvrch© †`Ljvg AwZ ¯có| ¯eM‡Zvw³i gZB A‡b‡K wdmwdm K‡i ej‡Qt Bm&! Qv` n‡Z jvk¸‡jv bvgv‡”Q

ev GUv †evanq Rmx‡gi Mjvi kã wKsev, †Kb †h †Q‡jUv G‡Zv †ewk K_v e‡j eywS bv, A_ev, ïbQ,

GUv bZzb Pvjvb wbðqB BZ¨vw`| kixi Avi gb `y‡UvB APj Aek n‡q c‡o‡Q| Ggb mgq nVvr

`iRv †Lvjvi kã †cjvg| mv‡_ mv‡_B eÜziv †PvL Avi nv‡Zi euvab c‡i wbj| e¨vcviUv Lye Avgy‡`

jvMj Avgvi| GKUz ¯evfvweK _vKvi R‡b¨ `iRv _vKvi mg‡q †PvL Avi nv‡Zi euvab nvjKv K‡i †djv Ges `iRv †Lvjvi kã †kvbvi mv‡j mv‡_ wbR wbR `¶Zvq Avevi D³ euvab c‡i †djvi

†KŠkj eÜziv B‡Zvg‡a¨B iß K‡i †d‡jwQj wKš‘ aiv c‡o †h‡Z A‡b‡KB|

A¯¿avix †mw›U« N‡i Xy‡KB ïi“ Kij KzrwmZ AK_¨ MvjvMvwj | Aciva, nvZ Avi †Pv‡Li

euvab nvjKv ev †Lvjv †Kb| Zvici Kv‡iv Pzj a‡i Uvb w`j ev Kv‡KI jvw_ wKsev †`qv‡ji mv‡_ gv_v Vz‡K w`‡q Pjj| ey‡Ui WMv w`‡q Avgvi Mv‡q av°v w`‡q ejj, ZzwgB eywS Kvj iv‡Zi †gngvb? me K_v Lvb mv‡ne‡K mwZ¨ mwZv e‡j †`‡e; bq‡Z H kvjvi `kv n‡e|Ó eySjvg bv wVK Kvi w`‡K wb‡`©k Kij| Zvici jvBb K‡i mevB‡K Uq‡jU i“‡g hvIqvi wb‡`©k w`bj| Gmgq wKQy¶‡Yi Rb¨ nvZ I †Pv‡Li evuab †Lvjv nq| RjfwZ© wU‡bi GK eo M−vm v g‡M| G‡ZB cª‡qvRbxq †kŠPKvR mvi‡Z n‡e, cvjvµ‡g| GKB e¨e¯’v LvIqvi †ejvqI| GK_vjv cvš v— fvZ, KzwP KzwP K‡i KvUv GKgy‡Vv †c‡c-gyjv ZiKvwi| †Kvb g‡Z `yR‡bi Lvevi | GLb fvM K‡i mvZR‡b †L‡Z

n‡e| Avi RjfwZ© mKv‡ji IB gM | Rjcv‡bi fvb K‡i Mjv †fRvZvg mevB| A_P Kv‡iv †Kvb †¶vf †bB| Afz³ K…òvZ© mvZRb †jvK cªkvš— g‡bB cªwZ PweŸk N›Uvq GKevi cvbvnvi ce© †kl KiZ| cªxwZ Avi åvZ„‡Z¡i Kx Ac~e© `„óvš—|

`ycy‡i ¯^cb G‡m ejjt AvR `v`v , cuvPRb LZg| GZ¶‡b KYd ©zjx‡Z fvm‡Q| Rmxg fvB †evanq evuP‡e bv Gevi| Qv` †_‡K jvwd‡q cvjv‡Z wM‡q †h †Q‡jwU aiv c‡owQj , wZbwZb A‡PZb _vKvi ci AvR gviv †M‡Q|

G ¯^cb wQj Avgv‡`i AÜKvi cª‡Kvô Avi e`icyixi †hvMm~Î| K‡qK gvm Av‡M †m aiv

c‡o R‰bK gyw³‡mbv‡K Zvi evoxi cv‡k¡©i †Mvcb c_ †`Lve i A iv‡a | wek¡¯— AvPi‡bi cyi¯‹vi wnmv‡e, GLb wK‡kvi ¯^cb Gu‡UvRj Avi Ni‡gvQvi KvR Ki| me N‡i Zvi Aeva MwZ| Kv‡Ri duv‡K ¯^M‡Zvw³i g‡Zv weoweo K‡i cªwZw`b †m msev` I wm×v‡š i— eû K_v Rvbv‡Zv| Avgiv †gvUvgywU mewKQy AvuP K‡i wbZvg| Avgv‡`i wVK Ic‡iB G e`icyixi wbh©vZb K¶| ¯^cb ejZ,

Iiv bvwK e‡j ÔGUv nvweqv †`vRLÕ ; †m GUvi A_© eySZ bv| †m ejZ , G Ônvweqv‡ZÕ †M‡j †KD Avi †d‡i bv †Zgb| Avgv‡K ejjt Ô`v`v Avcwb GLv‡b †ewkw`b Avi _vK‡eb bv, Avcwb I Av‡iv PviRb , LvZvq AvR Avcbv‡`i bvg wj‡L‡QÕ| mwVK wKQy eySjvg bv, †mI †Zgb wKQy cwi¯‹vi †ev‡Swb| gbUv Lye fvix jvMj| MZiv‡Z ‡gv‡UB Nyg nqwb| †mwK fqvZ© ivZ| gv_vi Ic‡i Qv‡` mvivivZ P‡j‡Q ûoyg-`yoyg j¼vKvÛ| †m Kx fqv_© eyKdvUv Kvbœv Avi AvwZ©| gv‡S gv‡S bi wcPvk¸‡jvi wbôzi AÆnvwmi †ivj|  Ônvweqv †`vRLBÕ e‡U|

‡mw`b `ycy‡i nVvr `iRv Ly‡j †M‡jv wZb PviRb †jvK A‡bKUv Kvu‡a Szwjqv †K GKRb‡K wb‡q G‡jv i“‡g| A‡bKUv wb‡¶c Kivi g‡Zv `y‡i †d‡j w`j †hb| `iRv e‡Üi mv‡_ mv‡_B †PvL

Avi nv‡Zi evuav Ly‡j Zv‡K †Kv‡j Zz‡j wbjvg| Ô†fw›U‡jUiÕ duy‡o Avmv GK wPj‡Z †iv‡` Zvi gyLUv Zz‡j aij mK‡j | mevB AvuZ‡K DVj, G †h Rmxg| wK‡kvi gyw³ h ×v Rmxg| gv_vUv †hb nV¨vr  †Kvj †_‡K AvjMv n‡q †M‡jv| Kv‡iv †evSvi evwK iB‡jv bv, Rmxg Avi †bB| IB GK wPj‡Z

†iv‡` Zvi wbtkã gyLUv wPKwPK K‡i R¡j‡Q| Kx my›`i gvqve gyL|

‡mw`b we‡K‡jB `yRb G‡m Avgv‡K wb‡q †Mj IB Ônvweqv †`vR‡LÕ|  †Pv‡Li evuab Lyj‡ZB †`wL Kv‡jv †cvkvKavix `yRb ÔRj−v`Õ †g‡Sq kvwqZ GK hye‡Ki ey‡Ki Ici ivLv Z³vq `vuwW‡q Av‡Q| cv‡k GKRvZxq Kv‡jv j¤^v †eë nv‡Z Av‡iv `yRb `vw uW‡q , `y‡i Av‡iv K‡qKRb †Pqv‡i Dcweó| hyeKwUi cªwZ wbw¶ß nw”Qj bvbv cªkœevYt ¯^xKv‡ivw³ Av`v‡qi GK ˆcPvwkK Kvq`v| hyeKwU m‡PZb wK Aa©g„Z †evSv hvw”Qj bv| Pviw`‡K †MvUv Qv`UvB XvKv| GK fqvZ© Av‡jv- Avuav‡i g‡b n‡jv G †hb GK wecyj A¯¿fvÛvi|  Pviw`‡K ‡L coj iKgvwi wbh©vZb mvgMªx| †jvnvi io, m~uB, BU, Kv‡Vi Z³v, †eq‡bUhy³ ivB‡dj BZ¨vw`| mewKQyi e¨enviB PjZ a„Z e¨w³‡`i Ô¯^xKv‡iv³xÕ I ÔwRÁvmvev`Õ MªnYKv‡j| nVvr †`wL GK m‡Rvi jvw_i AvNv‡Z hyeKwU dzUe‡ji g‡Zv Mwo‡q †Mj, Avi cvke AÆnwm‡Z Iiv †hb †d‡U coj| Avgvi `vwq‡Z¡ wb‡qvwRZ evw³wU GK wbtk¡v‡m GKivk cªkœ Qy‡o ÔwVKwVKÕ Reve bv w`‡j Avgvi cwiYwZ Av‡iv fqen n‡e GB g‡g© mveavb K‡i w`j| K_v¸‡jv wQjt Ôev‡ci evox BwÛqv †_‡K KLb G‡mQ; Kx Kx G‡b‡Q; †Zvgvi cvwU©i Avi me †bZviv †Kv_vq Av‡Q; kn‡i Kx `vwqZ¡ cvjb Ki; KvMRcÎ- Kkv †Kv_vq †i‡LQÕ BZ¨vw`| ejjvgt ÔAvwg KL‡bv fvi‡Z hvBwb, GZw`b Mªv‡gi evwo wQjvg ; MZ Pvi gvm †_‡K kn‡i †ckvMZ Kv‡R e¨¯Z|Õ jvw_ av°v-Nywl A¯¿ e¨envi Ki‡jv Ô¯exKv‡ivw³Õ cª`v‡bi R‡b¨| Avwg

`„pfv‡e ejjvg| ÔGi †P‡q †ewk Avi wKQy Avgvi ejvi †bB |ÕÕ GKUz c‡i i“‡g wb‡q G‡jv| Avmvi

mgq ejjt †Zvgv‡K ÔAvmj RvqMvqÕ cvVv‡Z n‡e|

`yw`b ci †`Ljvg nVvr Ôe`icyix‡ZÕ n¯ `— ¯— †kvi‡Mvj wPrKvi c o‡Q| †ek KRb‡K wewfbœ

i“g †_‡K wb‡P G‡b GK U«v‡K DVv‡bv n‡jv, Avgv‡KI| ejj ÔGevi †mvRv RvbœvZÕ D‡V ‡`wL Avgvi `yRb wewkó eÜz b¨vc †bZv byi“bœex mv‡ne Avi mvBdzÏxb Lvb| Aci `yRb mvsevw`K †gQevn Lvb I gyw³‡hv×v †mwjg| PovB-DrivB n‡q U«vKwU †hb †Kvb GK DuPz RvqMvq _vgj| †Kvb GK †mbvQvDwb g‡b n‡jvt ˆmb¨iv D`y©‡Z K_v ejwQj| GKRb ivMZ ¯e‡i ejjt mgy‡`ª †d‡j bv w`‡q GLv‡b †Kb? Ab¨Rb ejjt ÔÔ nu¨v gvQwj- Kv †LvivK, gvQwj Lvn‡j‡Z, AvIi nvg jvM gvQwj Lvn‡K ‡gvUv †nv‡Z|ÕÕ G‡`i K_vi duv‡K eySjvg Avgv‡`i ÔmvwK©U nvDm QvDwb‡ZÕ Avbv n‡q‡Q| gbUv †hb AvuZ‡K DVj nVvr| ZL‡bv Avgv‡`i nv‡Z G evwoi K‡Zv bv Z_¨ ÔÔ B‡jKwU«K †Pqv‡iÕÕ kK w`‡q cªwZw`b gvbyl gviv n‡”Q GLv‡b| G‡`i MYKe‡ii Qwe m¤úªwZ Avgiv msMªn K‡iwQ| fvejvg, mgq wK Z‡e G‡Kev‡e dzwi‡q G‡jv! Gi g‡a¨ GKRb ˆmwbK U«v‡K D‡V Avgv‡`i bvg-avg Z_¨ wjLwQj| GKRb

e`i †mbv ejj †Kvb wgwUs Gi gvSLv‡b †_‡K Avgv‡K a‡i‡Q| ÔÔ Avwg ejjvgt wgwUsUv wK Avwg GKvB KiwQjvg? Ab¨ †jvK¸‡jv Z‡e †Kv_vq †Mj?ÕÕ ˆmb¨wU ejjt ÔÔAv‡i e`ix B‡q †Zv wejKzj

wVK evr Ze Amwj evr †Kqv n¨vq evZvI|ÕÕ †m AvgZv AvgZv K‡i K_v LuyRwQj| ˆmb¨wU AU«nvwm‡Z

ejj, ÔÔ †Kqv evr n¨vq evnv`yi RIqvb?ÕÕ AvgivI m‡Rv‡i †n‡m DVjvg|

nVvr Av‡`k G‡jv Avgv‡`i †diZ wb‡q hvIqvi| Pviw`‡K Qy‡UvQywU Avi wPrKvi| KzrwmZ fvlvq MvjvMvj, ivMZ ¯e‡it eySjvg, Ôevnv`yi wmcvB‡`iÕ AvR Ôgyw³i ev”PvivÕ †evanq †ek fvj gviB w`‡q‡Qt Gevi †nv‡Uj Wvwjg bq; PU«Mªvg KvivMvi| AviI `yevi wRÁvmvev‡`i ZvwiL †cjvg| wKš‘ Iiv Avcb cªvY euvP‡ZB e¨¯Z ZLb|

Ae‡k‡l G‡jv †m KvswLZ weRq w`em †lvjB wW‡m¤^i Dwbkk GKvËi| wKš‘ Av‡Rv wK n‡q‡Q evOvwji `yt¯e‡cœi Aemvb?Ó (emphasis supplied)

If we read the oral and documentary evidence

regarding descriptions of brutality committed in hotel Dalim and we have no hesitation but to draw conclusion that the appellant and his accomplices are

responsible for the holocaust committed in Dalim Hotel. It is proved beyond all shadow of doubt from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 and from the contents of material exhibit-VI that the Dalim Hotel was used as one of the torture cells of Badar Bahini, Chittagong and the appellant was in command position of that brutal force.


Let us see the news items regarding the activities of Al-Badar Bahini which were published in the different news paper subsequent after 16th

December, 1971:


The Observer

“Al-Badar leader held-

“Abdul Khaleque, a collaborator of the notorious fascist Al- Badar Bahini was caught on Wednesday in Rampura. He disclosed the names of nine Al- Badar members who conducted the cold blooded murders of the intellectuals in the city prior to the shamefull surrender of the occupation arms.”


The Morning News.

“Nazmul Huq: Victim of Badar Bahini.”


The Dainik Pakistan/ Bangla ÒKzL¨vZ Avj e`i evwnbx

G‡`i awi‡q w`b|Ó


The DainiK Purbadesh

ÒKzL¨vZ Avj e`i evwnbx wkKvi H me eyw×Rxweiv AvR †Kv_vq?Ó


The Dainik Purbadesh Ògvb‡ewZnv‡mi RNY¨Zg Aciv‡ai wePvi PvB |Ó


The Dainik Purbadesh

ÒI‡`i Lyu‡R †ei Ki‡Z n‡e| Ó

Ò`Lj`vi cvwK¯ v— bx evwnbxi †hvMmvRmKvix I evsjv‡`‡ki KwZcq Kz-mš v— ‡bi †bZ…‡Z¡ Avj- e`i, Avj- kvgm I †iRvKvi evwnbx †mvbvi evsjvi Ávb cª`xc eyw×Rxwe‡`i nZ¨vi Rb¨ hviv `vqx Zv‡`i Luy‡R  †ei Kivi I we‡kl U«vBey¨bv‡j wePvi Kivi `vex D‡V‡Q| Ó


The Dainik Purbadesh ÒGB b„ksm nZ¨vKv‡Ûi Reve wK ?Ó

Gikv` gRyg`vi

BwZnv‡mi N„Y¨Zg nvbv`vi cvK evwnbx I Zv‡`i c`‡jnx Avj-e`i I Avj kvgm ¯^vaxbZvi

†mvbvjx j‡Mœ †kl ev‡ii g‡Zv wnsmª †Qvej †g‡i wPiw`‡bi g‡Z †K‡o bw‡q‡Q Avgv‡`i RvwZi Áv‡bi D¾¡j cª`xc cªvq `y‡kv eyw×Rxwe, wk¶vwe` I mvsevw`K‡K|

¯^vaxbZvi Dò Av‡jvi avivi mèvb K‡iI Avgviv AvR Av‡jvi Afve Abyfe KiQ|

wKš y — g‡b cªvb Rv‡M Avgiv wK BwZnv‡mi GB b„ksmZg nZ¨v Kv‡Ûi Reve L~‡R cve bv?

‡Kb GB nZ¨vKvÛ? ev½vjx Rvw‡Z‡K Áv‡bi Av‡jv †_‡K ewÂZ Kivi Rb¨?

evsjvi eyw×Rxwe, mvsevw`K I wk¶vwe`‡`i GB nZ¨v K‡Ûi mv‡_ RwoZ KzL¨vZ K‡b©j BRvR I we‡MªwWqvi ikx` GLb †Kv_vq? GB bicky‡`i wK †MªdZvi Kiv n‡q‡Q?

evsjv gvby‡li GB Áv‡bi cª`xc bqbgwb‡`i †kl gyû‡Z© wbwðZ Kivi Rb¨ `vqx †Rbv‡ij wbqvwRi wei“‡× wK Awf‡hvM Avbv n‡q‡Q?

cªkœ D‡V‡Q GKUvRvwZ‡K wbwðn“ Kivi Rb¨ wbqvRx †Mvôx †h D‡`¨M MªnY K‡i‡Q Ges BwZg‡a¨ hv‡`i nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q †mB Awf‡hv‡M Zv‡`i wei“‡× hy× Aciv‡ai Awf‡hvM Avbv n‡e bv †Kb?

Avš R— vwZ©K †iWµm jxMe¨vcv‡i wK †Kvb D‡`¨M Mªnb Ki‡Z cv‡ib bv ? ï‡bwQ †nv‡Uj B›UviK‡g Ae¯nvbiZ †iWµm Kg©KZ©vi wbnZ A_ev GLbI wb‡L uR 155 Rb eyw×Rxwei bvg †c‡q‡Qb|


The Dainik Purbadesh

ÒAvj e`‡ii bi wcPvkiv I‡`i ürwcÛ †U‡b †ei K‡i‡Q ?Ó

XvKv, 22‡k wW‡m¤^i| - MZ 1jv wW‡m¤^i †fvi PviUvi , ag©vÜ Avj-e`i evwnbxi GKRb --- ‰mq` bvRgyj nK , mv‡eK wcwUAvB Gi Pxd wi‡cvU©vi Ges ---- --- i I digvb Avjxi cªZ¨¶ Z`viwK‡Z

KzL¨vZ e`i evwnbxi evsjvi kZ kZ eyw×Rxex‡K GKB Dcv‡q AcniY K‡i Ges Zv‡`i Dci

AgvbywlK wbh©vZ‡bi ci nZ©¨v Kv‡i| evsjvi GB me m~h©¨ mš v— b‡`i Lybxiv cª_‡g †gvnvg¥`cyi¯’ wdwRK¨vj †U«wbs ¯‹z‡j wb‡q hvq Ges iv‡qi evRv‡ii BU‡Lvjvi Kv‡Q ea¨f~wg‡Z wbôzifv‡e nZ¨v K‡i| ˆmq`bRgyj n‡Ki fv‡M¨ GB N‡U‡Q|

Rbve n‡Ki g„Z‡`n GL‡bv Luy‡R cvIqv hvqwb Z‡e †h me nZfvM¨ †`i g„Z‡`n Luy‡R cvIqv †M‡Q Zv‡`i kix‡i AK_¨ wbh©¨Z‡bi wPn“ †`Lv †M‡Q| Kv‡iv bvK †K‡U †`qv n‡q‡Q| Kv‡ivi nvZ, Av½yj, Kv‡iv eyK wP‡i bi-cïiv †ei K‡i‡Q ürwcÛ| Kv‡iv †`‡n dvwj dvwj KvUvi `vM| wcPvkiv Kv‡iv gyL cywo‡q w`‡q‡Q GwmW w`‡q|

kZvwaK we‡`kx mvsevw`K †`L‡Z wM‡qwQ‡jb GB bviKxq nZ¨vKvÛ|wcPvk‡`i GB i³wccvmv †`‡L Zviv ¯ w— ¤¢Z n‡q evKi“× n‡q †M‡Qb| Zviv e‡jb we‡k¡i BwZnv‡m Gi“c wbôzi ai‡bi nZ¨vhÁ GB cª_g|

GKRb we‡`kx mvsevw`K Gi“cI e‡j‡Qb, ÒAvgiv †h gvbyl Zv G †`‡L wek¡vm Kivi †Kvb

Dcvq ‡bB| wb‡R‡`i gvbyl e‡j cwiPq w`‡ZI Avgv‡`i j¾v nIqv DwPZ|Ó


The Dainik Purbadesh

Òe`i evwnbxi wkKvi AviI mvZRb eyw×Rxexi jvk D×vi Ó ÒbicïwU †Mvi¯ v— ‡bi cv‡k `vuo Kwi‡q ¸jx K‡i Zvu‡`i †g‡i‡Q| Ó


The Dainik Azad

ÒAvi GKUv mßvn mgq †c‡j Iiv ev½vjx eyw×Rxex‡`i mevB‡K †g‡i †dj‡Zv|Ó

Òe`i evwnbxi gvóvi c−vbÓ

ÒwbR¯^ wbeÜKviÓ

cvwK¯ v— bx nvbv`vi evwnbxi MYnZ¨vq mvnvh¨Kvix `j¸‡jvi g‡a Rvgv‡Z Bmjvgxi f~wgKv wQj me‡P‡q N„Y¨ I RNY¨| gI`y`x †Mvjvg AvRg- Ave`yi iwn‡gi †bZ…‡Z¡ cwiPvwjZ Rvgv‡Z Bmjvgx evsjv‡`‡ki ¯^vaxbZv msMªv‡gi ïay ‡NviZi we‡ivwaZvB K‡iwb- j¶ j¶ ev½vjx‡K cvBKvixfv‡e nZ¨vi Kv‡R mwµq mn‡hvMxZvI K‡i‡Q| Avi GB RNb¨ nZ¨vKv‡Û mn‡hvwMZv Ki‡Z wM‡q Zviv cweÎ Bmjv‡gi bvg e¨envi K‡i‡Q| a‡g©i bv‡g GZeo RNb¨ ee©iZv mf¨ `ywbqvi Avi †Kvb †`‡k KLbI msNwUZ K‡i‡Q e‡j KL‡bv ïbv hvq w |

nvbv`vi cvwK¯ v— bx evwnbxi wbwe©Pv‡i MYnZ¨vi mwµq mn‡hvwMZv K‡iB Rvgv‡Z Bmjvgx ¶vš— nqwb- evsjv‡`‡ki eyw×Rxex mgvR‡K m¤ú~Y© wbg~©j Kivi D‡Ï‡k¨ Zviv M‡o Zz‡j wQj GK

¸ß mš¿vmev`x msMVb e`i evwnbx bv‡g hv me©mvavi‡bi wbKU cw wPZ wQj| cvwK¯ v— bx

nvbv`vi evwnbxi AvZ¥mgc©‡bi †kl gyû‡Z© GB e`i evwnbx eû msL¨K eyw×Rxex‡K iv‡Zi AÜKv‡i a‡i wb‡q b„ksmfv‡e nZ¨v K‡i‡Q G Lei GLb mevB †R‡b †M‡Q| ---------Ó     


The Dainik Pakistan 

ÒkZvãxi RNY¨Zg nZ¨vKvÛ msNwUZ K‡i‡Q, 

ÒAvj- e`i ee©i evwnbx Ó

eû jvk D×vi|

‡Kvb fvlvq cªKvk Kie

ÒAvj- e`i cï‡`i GB b„ksmZv | Ó

(evsjv‡`k wi‡cvU©vi)

Ò¯^vaxbZvi Avb›` D”Qv‡¯^i gv‡S MZKvj kwbevi evsjv‡`‡ki i Ravbx XvKv bMix‡Z 

†kv‡Ki Qvq †b‡g Av‡m| gyw³i Av›`b‡K Qvwc‡q I‡V Kvbœvi †ivj| kZvãxi RNb¨Zg nZ¨vKvÛ msNwUZ n‡q‡Q XvKv bMix I evsjv †`‡k MZ †deª“qvix †_‡K| Zv Avevi Pi‡g D‡VwQj gyw³i c~e©¶‡Y| 

 GB b„ksm nZ¨vKvÛ Pvwj‡q‡Q MZ mßvn a‡i Rvgv‡Z Bmjvgxi Avj e`i|

kn‡ii K‡qKRb eyw×Rxex I hyeK‡K G‡K G‡K a‡i wb‡q wM‡q AgvbywlKfv‡e nZ¨v  

K‡i----- Ó


The Dainik Pakistan  

Ò‡Kvb fvlvq cªKvk Kie ÒAvj e`iÓ cï‡`i GB b„ksmZv Ó

              (evsjv‡`k wi‡cvU©vi)

Ò‰`wbK evsjv Mfxi †e`bv Ges †¶v‡ci mv‡_ Rvbv‡”Q ‡h, Avj- e`i Ges Avj kvgm evwnbx wnsmª kvc‡`i bLi we¯ v— i K‡i msNe×fv‡e MZ K‡qKw` b Avgvi †`‡ki eû msL¨K MY¨ mvsevw`K, mvwnZ¨K kwk¶K, wPwKrmK AvBbRxex I Qv·K b„ksmfv‡e nZ¨v K‡i‡Q| MZ K‡qK

gvm hver nvbv`vi cvK evwnbxi mn‡hvMx d¨vwm÷ Rvgv‡Z Bmjvgx Ges Ab¨vb¨ DMª `w¶Ycš’x `‡ji msMwVZ Avj - e`i I Avj- mvgm evwnbx evsjv †`‡ki AwaK…Z GjvKvq ga¨hyMxq ee©iZvi †P‡qI wbôzi ZvÛe jxjv Pvwj‡q hvw”Qj nvbv`vi evwnbxi Pig civR‡qi cªv‡š— G‡mI Zviv Zv Ae¨vnZ †i‡LwQj| Av‡Mi †P‡q AwaKZi bviKxq Dj−vm wb‡q Zviv Svuwc‡q co‡j, Avgvi †`‡ki mvsevw`K, mvwnwZ¨K, wPwKrmK, wk¶K I AvBbRxe‡`i Dci nvbv`vi cvK evwnbxi wei“‡× wgÎevwnbxi Pig ch©v‡q msMªvg ïi“ nIqvi ci Zviv evox evox nvbv w`‡q a‡i wb‡q †M‡jv wcªq ¯^Rb‡`it Avgvi

†`‡ki †mvbvi mš v— b‡`i| ---------- Ó


The Dainik Ittefaq Ò‡mvbvi evsjvi b„ksmZg nZ¨vhÁ|Ó

Òmvsevw`K, mvwnwZ¨K Aa¨vcK wPwKrmK I eyw×Rxexmn kZvwaK †mvbvi `yjvj wbnZ|Ó 05.01.1972

The Dainik Ittefaq ÒbiwcPvk‡`i Øiv AcüZ AviI KwZcq eyw×Rxei MwjZ jvk D×vi|Ó


The Dainik Ittefaq Ò`yBwU inm¨gq K~c

eyw×Rxex‡`i nZ¨vi in‡m¨i bqv m~Î?|Ó


The Dainik Ittefaq  

Òb„ksmZg nZ¨vhÁ

Bnviv GLbI  wb‡LvuR| Ó

(B‡IdvK wi‡cvU©)

Ò`Lj`vi cvK mvgwiK evwnbxi c¶cyó ee©i e`i evwnbxi b„ksm I BwZnv‡mi RNY¨Zg

nZ¨vh‡Ái wkKvi evsjv †`‡ki AMwYZ cªwZfvi g‡a¨ MZKj¨ (iweevi) ch©š— Aa¨vcK gybxi †PŠayix, XvKv wek¡we`¨vj‡qi †iv‡Kqv n‡ji cª‡fvó †eMg AvLZvi Bgvg mn AviI K‡qK R‡bi jvk ea¨ f~wg nB‡Z mbv³ I D×vi Kiv nBqv‡Q| B‡Ëdv‡Ki Kvh©¨wbe©vn m¤úv`K Rbve wmivRyÏxb †nv‡mb, ˆ`wbK msev‡`i hyM¥ m¤cv`K Rbve knx`yj−vn K qmvi, Aa¨vcK †gvdv¾j nvq`vi †PŠayix cªgyLmn †mvbvi evsjvi cªwZfvm¤úbœ eû † mbviv mš v— ‡bi AvRI †Kvb mÜvb wg‡j bvB| †Kn †Kn GLbI Abygvb Kwi‡Z‡Q †h, ea¨fzwgi cvk¡©eZx© mvZ gmwR‡`i mw›`KU¯— GjvKvq NvZK‡`i †Kvb AÜ cª‡Kv‡ó AcüZ‡`i †Kn †Kn nq‡Zv RxweZ Av‡Qb| Z‡e GB GjvKvq wMqv GLbI †Kvbi“c AbymÜvb Pvjv‡bv m¤¢e bq| Ó


The Dainik Purbadesh Òea¨f~wg wkqvjevox

Ògxicy‡ii DcK‡Ú †Svc-Svo I cvZKzqvq nvRvi nvRvi biKsKvj cvIqv †M‡Q| Kvj e„n¯cwZevi ¯’vbxq GKRb †jv‡K Lei †c‡q Avgiv AKz¯nj cwi`k©b K‡i G‡mwQ| GB GjvKvi e‡b-ev`v‡o- jvk AmsL¨ KsKvj Qwo‡q wQwU‡q Av‡Q| cvwK¯ ‡— bi nvbv`vi `my¨ evwnbx I Zv‡`i m‡½vcv½‡`i KzL¨vZ Avj e`i I gyRvwn` evwnbx GB ¯’vbwU‡K ea¨f~wg wn‡m‡e wbe©vPb K‡iwQj e‡j g‡b n‡q|

ea¨f~wgi bvg wkqvjevox| GKKv‡j †h GLv‡b Rbc` wQj Zv AvR †evSvi Dcvq †bB| we¯ x— AÂj †SvcSvo I jZvcvZvq †Q‡q Av‡Q| c_NvU `y‡Mv©g ïay i‡³i ¯^v¶i Mv‡q wb‡q BwZnv‡mi Ki“Y Kvwnbx n‡q wb‡Ri aeske‡k‡li Ici `vwo‡q Av‡Q  wkqvjevoxi Mªvg| ------ ------- wkqvjevox M«v‡g GKw`b hviv my‡Li bxo †e‡awQ‡jb Zviv †KD †bB| Lvb †mbv I KzL¨vZ e`i- gyRvwn` evwnbxi ˆcPvwkK AZ¨vPv‡ii f‡q †KD nq‡Zv cªvY wb‡q cvjv‡Z †c‡i wQ‡jb, †KD cv‡ib

wb| Zv‡`i Qvov evB‡ii AmsL¨ †jvK‡K †h ILv‡b wb‡q b„ksm wbwe©Pv‡i nZ¨v K‡i‡Q Zvi my¯có wPý GLv‡b we`¨gvb---Ó


The Dainik Sangbad ÒGKvš ‡— ii evsjvqÓ

Ò knx`yj Bmjvg Ó

 Ò¯^vaxbZv| DËß i‡³i e`‡j ¯^vaxbZv i‡³i mvMi nv‡Z Zz‡j Avbv ¯^vaxbZv|

†bK‡oi  gyL  n‡Z  wQwb‡q  jIqv  ¯^vaxbZv|  G  GKwU  BwZnvm|  GKwU  b„ksm  ee©iZvi BwZnvm|  wbg©g I wbôzi  BwZnvm| GKwU Ki“b BwZnvm| †e`bvi BwZnvm| mf¨Zvi

RNb¨Zg Aa¨v‡qi ˆckvwPK BwZnvm| j¾vi BwZnvm| N„Yvi BwZnvm| KZ Rxeb| KZ

cªvY| KZ cªwZfv| ¯^vgx-evc- cyÎeay ¶q †M‡Q| ¶q n‡q †M‡Q KZ beRvZ wkï| ewji

wkKvi n‡q‡Q jvL jvL gv‡qi mš v— b| UzK‡iv UzK‡iv K‡i KvUv n‡q‡Q Zv‡`i| kvb †`qv

ewU‡Z RevB Kiv n‡q‡Q| iv¯ v— q    iv¯ v— q †e‡q‡b‡Ui †LvuPvq †LvuPvq wP‡o wP‡o cªvY †bqv n‡q‡Q KZ Kzjeayi| DËi muvovkx w`‡q wRnev †U‡b †ei Kiv n‡q‡Q - †PvL Dcwo‡q †djv

n‡q‡Q KZ wbixn gvby‡li| nvZ- cv- bvK -Kvb †K‡U †K‡U GKUv exfrm | gvby‡l gvbyl

gv‡i | nZ¨v K‡i| RevB K‡i| mf¨Zvi GwK cwigvb? gv‡qi eyK †_‡K wQwb‡q wb‡q‡Q KZ

wkï KZ hyeK KZ hyeZx| KZeay n‡q‡Q ¯^vgx nviv| ¯^vgx n‡q‡Q eaynviv Avi mš v— b m¤¢ev gv‡K AvQ‡o AvQ‡o gviv n‡q‡Q| MjvwU‡c nZ¨v Kiv n‡q‡Q KZ evc‡K|

‡mB 25‡k gvP© | †mw`b †_‡K ïi“ n‡jv nZ¨v| `xN© 10wU gvm Pvjv‡jv nZ¨vjxjv|

Iiv KvD‡K LvwZi K‡iwb| ¶gv K‡iwb| kªwgK-K…lK- mvsevw`K mvwnwZ¨K-Wv³vi-Aa¨vcK- ivRbxwZwe`- QvÎ-hyeK Z_v evsjvi Avevjey×ewYZv mKj‡KB nZ¨v K‡i‡Q| ee©i ‰mb¨‡`i mn‡hvMx Avj-e`i, wPZvi gZ †PvL--- A`„k¨ nvZ| GLv‡b ¸i“Zi gv †evb‡K  R¨vš— cy‡o‡Q| gvwU‡Z cy‡Z ˆcPvwkK AZ¨vPvi Pvwj‡q‡Q| Zvi K‡Úi wPrKvi gg©‡f`x AvZ©bv`

AvR I cw_K‡K w`‡knviv K‡i| fzwj‡q †`q|

¯ yc— ¯ yc— nvo BZ¯ Z— c‡o Av‡Q| nvRvi eQi ci †Kvb cªZœZvwZ¥ hw` Lbb Pvjvb

Z‡e Lyu‡R cv‡e DwbkÔ k GKvˇii evsjvi i“c| †Kvb BwZnvwmK hw` BwZnv‡mi wiPvm©

K‡i Z‡e L~u‡R cv‡eb †Pw½k, ˆZgyi, wnUjvi, g~‡mvwjbx---Ó

The Guinness Book of Records lists the Bangladesh Genocide is one of the top genocides in

the 20th Century. It was one of the worst genocides

of the world. “There is no doubt that mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally

planned of modern genocides. For month after month

in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres

went on. They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. Muslim soldiers, sent to kill Muslim peasants, went about their work mechanically and efficiently until killing, defenseless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine---- Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre” (Robert Payne). Those “willing executioners” were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against Hindu minority.”


This statutory appeal is directed from a

judgment of the International Crimes Tribunal No.2 convicting the appellant Mir Quashem Ali in respect of charge Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 analogously and sentencing him to 20 years in respect of charge No.2; 7 years in respect of other charges except charge No.11 in which he is sentenced to death and also convicting him in respect of charge No.12 by majority and sentenced to death. He was acquitted in respect of the charge Nos.1, 5, 8 and 13.

Charge No.2

This charge is as follows:

‘The on 19 November, 1971 at about 2.00 p.m. during the War of Liberation you Mir Kashem Ali being the President of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town Unit and or a member of group of individuals and under your leadership Victim Lutfar Rahman Faruk and Seraj were abducted while they were staying in the house of Mr. Syed At 35 Bokshirhut ward under Chaktai area of Baklia Police Station by Pakistani invading force and members of Al-Badar Bahini. They were taken to Mohamaya Hotel popularly known as Dalim Hotel Torture Cell at Andarkilla under Kotwali Police Station organized by you. In your presence and instigation they were tortured there. Victim Lutfar Rahman Faruk was taken outside thereafter to identify houses of pro-liberation activists and were set fire on those houses. Keeing Lutfar Rahman Faruk under torture for 2/3 days at Dalim Hotel, was handed over to Circuit House under control of Pakistani occupation force where he was again tortured and then sent to Chittagong jail. Thereafter, Faruk was freed after 16th December, 1971.

Therefore, you are hereby charged for abetting and facilitating commission of offences of abduction, confinement and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed to the actual commission of offence of crimes against humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973, which are punishable under section 20(2) of the Act. You are also liable for commission of above offences under Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.’

In support of this charge, the prosectuion examined one witness , the victim P.W.20 Lutfur Rahman Faruk. From the evidence of P.W.20, it appears that he is a Science Graduate and in 1971 he was aged at about 22 years. In his evidence, he stated that about 3 p.m. on 19th November, 1971 the members of Al-Badar bahini, Al-Shams and Pak army surrounded their shelter where Munsurul Haque Chowdhury, Abul Kalam, freedom fighter Seraj and this witness were gossiping. At that time, his mother called him. He opened the door and found the members of Al-Badar bahini and Pak-army in front of the door. Siraj and this witness tried to flee away but they ordered, “Hands Up” and he stood up. Abul Kalam fled away. Confining Shiraj and this witness, they brought them in hotel Dalim where he found Mir Quashem Ali and another person. This witness found many people confined in hotel Dalim. As per direction of Mir Quashem Ali, members of Badar bahini locked up him

in blindfolding condition. They, pursuant to the order of Mir Quashem Ali, tortured this witness whole night by electric wire. At one stage, he became senseless. When he was brought to hotel Dalim he requested the appellant to give him a glass of water

to  for  “Ifter”  since  he  was  fasting but  the appellant directed to give urine instead of water.

Mir Quashem Ali uttered, Ô†Zv‡`i Avevi †ivRv wK‡mi, I‡K cªkªve `vI LvIqvi Rb¨Õ . He said that he was kept confined for about

7 / 8 days. Every day members of Badar bahini tortured this witness inhumanly and did not allow him

to have food regularly. He said that Mir Quashem Ali

was the leader of Badar Bahini camped in hotel Dalim.

He was brought to Circuit house and keeping him confined the army tortured him brutally. At one stage, he was brought to a room behind circuit house where he saw deadbodies of 400-500 people. He saw a killer killing a young man there. He also attempted

to kill this witness. This witness added that due to inhuman torture he became impotent. (saying so, he started crying on dock). 

In his cross-examination, he said that Hotel Dalim is situated about 1½ Kilometer off from his

house. On 19.11.1971, Mir Quasem Ali was the President, Islami Chhatra Sangha of Chittagong Town Unit. To answer a question put by the tribunal, this witness said that he knew Mir Quashem Ali as student leader before his arrest on 19.11.1971. He denied the defence suggestion that he did not see the appellant Mir Quasem Ali in Dalim Hotel and that at his instance the members of Al-Badar Bahini tortured this witness through out the whole night and he lost his senses. He also denied the defence suggestion that he did not request the members of Al-Badar Bahini to give him some water since he was fasting and that Mir Quashem Ali directed to give him (witness) urine instead of water.  

 Mr.S.M. Shahjahan repeatedly argued that in cross-examination this witness admitted that he married in 1979 and as such his claim that he became impotent due to torturing is not true. He further submits that wife of this witness gave birth to a child which proved that his claim as to his impotency

is not true.

The story of becoming or unbecoming impotent is not so important in this case   if it is found that the evidence adduced by this witness is true so far as it relates to charge  framed against the appellant. 

From the above quoted evidence, it appears to us that P.W.20, victim Faruk, was abducted by the members of Al-Badar Bahini and Pak-army. Thereafter, he was brought to Hotel Dalim. He was brutally tortured by the members of Al-Badar Bahini as per direction of the appellant. When he was brought to Hotel Dalim he found the appellant there. The appellant passed the order to torture this witness. Accordingly, at the instance of the appellant, the members of Al-Badar Bahini assaulted him inhumanly through out the night by electric wire. When he was brought to Hotel Dalim he requested  the appellant to give him a glass of water stating that he was fasting. Then this appellant Mir Quasem Ali who, is a Muslim and according to him he was fighting for Islam and Islamic Republic of Pakistan, said,  Ô†Zv‡`i Avevi †ivRv wK‡mi, I‡K cªkªve `vI LvIqvi Rb¨Õ.

 That was the offer of a Muslim before “iffter”

!  It appears that the date of arrest of this appellant was on 19th November, 1971. ‘Eid-ul- Fitr’ was observed in 1971 on 21st November. That is, this witness proved beyond reasonable doubt  about the date, time, place and manner of occurrence. The testimonies of this witness, who himself is an injured witness, are natural. Though there is no

corroborative evidence in respect of charge No.2, the evidence of this P.W.20 is so natural, clear and specific that we do not find anything to disbelieve the witness. The demeanour of this witness, the plausibility and clarity of his testimony are so natural that we do not find anything to discard his testimony. It is well settled principle that conviction and sentence can be awarded on the basis of testimony of a solitary witness if such testimony is free from any doubt. This witness is an injured witness and his evidence is full, complete and the contents of his testimony have not been shaken in any manner by the defence in cross-examination. There is no lacking in terms of the indicia of reliability as to be devoid of any probative value. It is also settled principle that not the quantity but the quality of evidence is to be considered. There is no impediment in law to award conviction on the basis of the testimony of single witness  if he is trustworthy. On perusal of the evidence of this witness it appears to us that his testimony is trustworthy and reliable. In the case of Prosecutor V. Bagilishema (ICTR-95-IA-(Appeals Chamber) July 3, 2002 para 79 it is observed that it is well settled that the testimony of a single witness on a material

fact may be accepted without the need for corroboration. The probative value to be attached to testimony is determined according to its credibility and reliability.  Tribunal found the testimony of this witness credible and reliable. In Muvunyi V. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-200-55-A-A(Appeals Chamber) August 29, 2008 it was held that “ A Trial Chamber has the discretion to rely on uncorroborated, but otherwise credible, witness testimony” . In Kayelijeli V. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 98-44A-A (Appeal Chamber) May 23, 2005 observed that Appeals Chamber has consistently held that a Trial Chamber is in the best position to evaluate the probative value of evidence and it may, depending on its assessment, rely on a single witness’s testimony for the proof of a material fact”. Acceptance of and reliance upon uncorroborated evidence, per se  does not constitute an error of law. We do not find any wrong in the decision of the Tribunal.  Accordingly, we are of the view that the Charge No.2 as framed against the appellant has been proved beyond all shadow of doubt. The Tribunal rightly convicted the appellant on this charge.

Charge No.3:

The Charge is as under:

‘That you Mir Kashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town Unit and or a member of group of individuals and under your leadership Victim Jahangir Alam Chowdhury was abducted on 22 or 23 November, 1971 in the morning with the help of Al-Badar Bahini and Pakistan army from his rented house at Kodam Tali under Double Mooring police station. Thereafter he was taken to Mohamaya Dalim Hotel Torture Cell at Andarkilla under Kotwali Police Statiion where he was merecilessly beaten and tortured at your instanace. When the countgry was liberated then he was rescued from Dalim Hotel Torture Cell in the early morning on 16th December, 1971 by his relatives and pro-liberation forces.

Therefore, the appellant is charged for abetting and facilitating commission of offences of abduction, confinement and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby he has substantially contributed to the actual commission of offence of crimes against humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973, which are punishable under section 20(2) of the Act. He is also liable for commission of above offences under Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.’

 In support of the charge, the prosecution examined P.W.1, Sayed Md. Emran, P.W.2 Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury, P.W.3 Nasiruddin Chowdhury, P.W.14 Foyez Ahmed Siddique, P.W.16 Jahangir Chowdhury. The victim of this charge Jahangir Alam Chowdhury (P.W.16) is aged about 66 years and in 1971 he was 23 years old. He is a graduate. In 1969-70, he was Sports Secretary of Chittagong City College Student Union. P.W. 16, the injured witness in his evidence said that two days after Eid-ul- Fitr in 1971, the members of Pak-army and Al-Badar Bahini surrounded their house and arrested him. Thereafter, he was brought at Hotel Dalim where he found his brother Dastagir Chowdhury and neighbour Mofiz who were also arrested and kept confined there. Firstly, he was kept confined in a room of the first floor of said Hotel and thereafter, was shifted in the second floor. Advocate Shafiul Alam was also   arrested and confined in the said room by the members of Al-Badar Bahini including Nurul Afsar and Mir Quasem Ali. Thereafter, confining in a kitchen he was tortured. The members of Al-Badar bahini, producing this witness before their supporters, showed the marks of violence appeared on his person. His face was disfigured due to assault. In one night, torturing

this witness, Nurul Absar brought him near the stair case and removing the cloth from blind- folded eyes asked him to read out the contents written on a paper and directed him to read out the contents in radio who expressed his inability to do so and requested them to kill him. At the time of those conversations, Mir Quashem Ali was present. Nurul Absar directed a boy to fasten his eyes again who fastened his eyes and, thereafter, they started torturing this witness inhumanly, consequently, he became senseless.

He was rescued from said Dalim Hotel on 16th December, 1971. He identified the appellant in dock.

 In his cross-examination, he said that he is the President of Sadarghat Thana Awami League. He further said that he found Sayed Md. Emran and Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury confined in Hotel Dalim. He denied the defence suggestion that it is not true that Afsar Ali and Mir Quasem Ali arrested Advocate Shafiul Alam and kept him confined and he found bleeding injury on the face of Advocate Shafiul Alam. He also denied that it is not true that at the time of his torturing Nurul Afsar and Mir Quasem Ali were not present.

P.W.1 Sayed Md. Emran, in his examination –in- chief said that he found the P.W.16 Jahangir Chowdhury and others confined in a room of hotel Dalim. P.W.2 Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury, another victim, in his evidence said that he had found Jahangir Chowdhury and others confined in a room. P.W.14 in his cross-examination said that on 16th December, 1971 he rushed to Dalim Hotel to rescue the victims and found P.W.16 along with others confined there. That is to say, the testimony of injured witness P.W.16 has been corroborated by P.Ws.1,2,3 and 14. Contents of material Ext.VI the book written by Advocate Shafiul Alam also corroborated the testimony by the P.W.16. In that book  Advocate Shaiful Alam, in 1989, stated that he was arrested by the members of Al-Badar Bahini and kept confined in Hotel Dalim. He found Jahangir Chowdhury in that room.

Mr. S.M. Shahjahan, learned Counsel, submits that P.W.16 did not claim that at the time of abduction, the appellant was present. P.W.16 in his evidence stated that he was abducted by the members of Al-Badar Bahini and Pak-army. It is true that the P.W.16 did not say that at the time of abduction, the appellant was present but he said that he found Mir Quasem Ali in Hotel Dalim where he was kept confined. He found the appellant when Nurul Afsar removed the piece of cloth from his eyes. In such view of the matter, we do not find any force in the submission made by S.M. Shahjahan.

On careful consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,3,14 and 16 and contents of material exhibit-VI, we are of the view that those witnesses corroborated each other as to the presence of the appellant in Hotel Dalim where the P.W.16 Jahangir Chowdhury was kept confined and brutally tortured after his abduction. We have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge No.3 against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

Charge No:4

The charge is as under:

‘In the late night of 24th November, in 1971, you Mir Kashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chitagong Town Unit and or a member of group of individuals at your instanace Victim Saifuddin Khan (now deadd) was abducted from Aziz colony under Double Mooring Police jStation and kept him confined in Dalim Hoteal Torture Cell under Andarkilla by the members of Al-Badar Bahini where he along with others were severely beaten and tortured by l-Badar Bahini under our leadership. Thereafter, on 2nd or 3rd December, at any time they were sent to Chittagong

jail where victim’s wife Nurjahan met him through Jailor and she found her husband with blood strained injuries. On 16th December, 1971 in the morning he was released from jail.

Therefore, you are hereby charged for abetting and facilitating the offences of adbuction, confinement and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed to the actual commission of offence of crimes against humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973, which are punishable under section 20(2) of the Act. You are also liable for commission of above offences under Section 4(1) of the Act.’

In support of this charge, the prosecution examined P.W.14 Foyez Ahmed Siddique who is a commerce graduate and at the relevant time he was aged about 23/24 years. He in his evidence said that on 24th November, 1971 his brother-in-law Shifuddin Khan was abducted by the members of Al-Badar Bahini. Mir Quasem Ali was the Commander of Al-Badar bahini. Hearing the facts of abduction of Shifuddin Khan, he rushed to Hetol Dalim and found Afsar Uddin, a leader of Islami Chhatra Sangha there. Afsar Uddin was 2/3 years junior to this witness when he was student of

Commerce College, Chittagong.  He assured this witness saying that Shaifuddin Khan is his relative as well so he would look after him. He said that on the morning of 16th December this witness and others went to Hotel Dalim and rescued all the prisoners. On 17th December, 1971 his brother-in-law, victim Shaifuddin Khan, was released from Chittagong jail who disclosed to this witnesses that on 2nd/3rd December, 1971 he was sent to Chittagong Jail. He also disclosed that he was severely tortured in Dalim Hotel. He also came to know from his brother- in-law that some of the prisoners of Dalim Hotel were severely tortured and killed and thereafter their dead bodies were thrown into river Karnafully.

Mr. S.M. Shahjahan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that except this hearsay witness there is no evidence on record who said that the appellant abducted the victim Shaifuddin Khan and tortured him in Hotel Dalim.

 On perusal of the evidence of this witness it appears that he heard that members of Al-Badar Bahini abducted Shaifuddin Khan and, thereafter, keeping him confined in Hotel Dalim, tortured him and, thereafter, sent him to Chittagong Central Jail. He simply stated, "Avj-e`‡ii KgvÛvi wQ‡jb gxi Kv‡kg Avjx' | It is

true that Mir Quasem Ali was the Commander of Al- Badar Bahini but this witness did not say that at the time of abduction of victim Saifuddin Khan by the members  of  Al-Badar  bahini, the  appellant  Mir Quashem Ali was present there with the Bahini or at the time of his torture, the appellant was present. In absence of such evidence, it is difficult to uphold the order of conviction of the appellant in respect of charge No.4. So we are of the view that this appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt in respect of this charge. He is acquitted of this charge. 

Charge No.6:

The charge is as under:

‘On 28th November, 1971 at about 10-30/11.00 a.m. Mir Kashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town Unit and or a member of group of individuals at his instance victim Harun-or-Rashid Khan (now dead) was abducted by the members of Al- Badar Bahini with the help of Pakistani force and kept him confined holding his hands ited and folding his eyes in Dalim Hotel Torture Cell at Andarkilla under Kotwali Police Station where he was tortured. Thereafter, at your directives on being tied and folded eyes, he was taken to another Torture Cell

known as Salma Manjil under Paschliesh in Chittagong. He was rescued from Salma Manjil on 16th December, 1971 in the morning by pro-liberation forces and local people when the country became freed from foes.

 Therefore, you are hereby charged for abetting and facilitating the offences of abduction, confinement and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed to the actual commission of offence of crimes against humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973, which are punishable under section 20(2) of the Act. You are also liable for commission of above offences under section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.’  

In support of the aforesaid charge No.6, the prosecution examined one witness who is P.W.15 Julekha Khatun who in her evidence said that on 28th November 1971 her husband, victim Harun-Or-Rashid Khan, was abducted by Al-Badar Bahini under the leadership of Mir Quasem Ali. Harun-Or-Rashid was severely tortured in Hotel Dalim and was kept confined 3/4 days. Thereafter, he was shifted to Salma Monzil another torture cell of Al-Badar Bahini. He was tortured severely keeping confined in a bathroom. There were other prisoners. The appellant tried to kill him in Salma Monjil. She, in her evidence, said that she married victim Harun-Or- Rashid in 1976 and he heard about the occurrence from her husband. In her cross-examination, this witness stated that Harun-Or-Rashid was author of several books and his several articles were published in different magazines. There are different articles of the victim about the war of liberation. She told that her husband did not write anything implicating Mir Quashem in any paper. In cross-examination she denied the defence suggestion that it is not true that Mir Quasem Ali and members of Al-Badar Bahini did not abduct her husband and keeping him confined in Hotel Dalim and Salma Monjil tortured him severely.

It is held that Mir Quashem was the leader of Al-Badar Bahini and in comand position of hotel Dalim torture cell but this witness stated that she married the victim Harun-Or-Rashid in 1976. Her husband disclosed about the aforesaid facts to her thereafter. Relying upon  the testimony of this solitary hearsay witness, who heard about  the occurrence long after the occurrence, the conviction of the appellant in this charge is unsafe. We are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get

benefit of doubt on this charge. So, he is acquitted of this charge.

Charge No.7:

The charge is as under:

‘On 27th November, 1971 after Magrib prayer you Mir Kashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town Unit and or a member of group of individuals, at your instance victim Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury, Habibur Rahman (now dead) and Elias were abducted  from  111  Uttar  Nala  Para  under  Double Mooring Police Station by the members of Al-Badar Bahini and kept them confined in the Torture Cell at hotel Mohamaya popularly known as Dalim Hotel at Andarkilla of Kotwali under your control. At his directives, members of Al-Badar Bahini tortured them severely who found many people there in the same condition during their forceful confinement in the Torture Cell. They saw that some of them were taken away and they heard that they were killed by Al-Badar Bahini at your instigation. Said Dalim Hotel was absolutely controlled by you as a high command of Al- Badar Bahini and central leader of Islami Chhatra Sangha. By Your order victims Habibur Rahman and Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury were released on 6th December and

9th December, 1971 respectively on condition that they would have to provide information about the freedom fighters regularly.

Therefore, your are charged for abetting and facilitating the offences of abduction, confinement and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed to the actual commission of offence of crimes against the humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973, which are punishable under section 20(2) of the Act.’

In support of his charge, the prosecution examined P.W.2 Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury who is a graduate and during the war of liberation he was aged about 25/26 years. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that after magrib prayer on 27th November, 1971 along with his sister’s husband Habibur Rahman (since dead) neighbour Zafar Ahmed (since dead), Elias and he himself were gossiping in their house. Someone knocked at the door. Accordingly, one of them opened the door. At that time, 7/8 armed personnel entered into their house and started searching and found two books written by Abul Quashem of Sandip. The armed personnel arrested this witness, Habibur Rahman, Elias and others and brought them to Dalim Hotel and confined them in a room. This witness found many other persons in the said room who were tortured inhumanly. Out of them, there were Advocate Shamsul Islam and Shah Alam of Uttar Nakhalpara. He also found Tuntu Sen, and Ranjit Das and others confined there. Thereafter, the members of Al-Badar Bahini kicked a person and threw him in the said room who

was crying. He was Advocate Shafiul Alam. He added, ""'Avgv‡K Wvwjg †nv‡U‡j AvUK _vKv Ae¯nvq cªvqkB wewfbœ i“‡g wb‡q wbh©vZb Kiv n‡Zv| GB

wbh©vZ‡bi mgq KLbI KLbI gxi Kv‡kg AvjxI Dcw¯nZ _vK‡Zv| gxi Kv‡kg Avjx I Avgv‡K AvUK Ae¯nvq Wvwjg †nv‡U‡j wRÁvmvev` K‡i‡Q|''  In his cross-

examination by the defence, he said that before the war of liberation he knew Hotel Dalim. He also replied in his cross-examination that he did not see any army or bihari in Hotel Dalim. He denied the defence  suggestion  that  what  he  told  about  Mir Quashem Ali is not true. He also said that it is not true that after 7th November 1971 Mir Quasem Ali left Chittagong. He also denied defence suggestion that he has deposed falsely. P.W.1 Md. Sayed Md. Emran in his examination-in-chief said that he saw Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury (P.W.2) confined in Hotel Dalim. P.W.13 Md. Hasan, who is a B.Sc. engineer and was aged about 16/17 years during the war of liberation, said in his evidence that in the last part of November 1971 some

armed personnel surrounded their house and house of his uncle Bashirul Huda and arrested three persons, namely, Habubur Rahman, Illias and Sanaullah. Thereafter, they were kept confined in Hotel Dalim. 3/4 days, thereafter, P.W.2 Sanaullah Chowdhury returned home who told that he was kept confined in Hotel Dalim and the members of Al-Badar Bahini tortured him mercilessly. That is, the testimony of injured witnesses P.W.2 has been corroborated by P.W.1 and 13. We do not find any materials contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence adduced by these three witnesses. Accordingly, we are of the view the prosecution has been able to prove charge No.7 against the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt.

Charge No. 9 

The charge is as under:

‘That on the following of 29th November, 1971 at about 4.00/4.30 a.m. you Mir Quashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town Unit and/or a member of group of individuals made a

plan and directed your cohorts the armed members of Al- Badar Bahini who surrounded the Nazirbari situated under Chandgaon police station, abducted Nuruzzaman along with his cousins Sayed Md. Osman

Hossain, Sayed Md. Jamaluddin, Sayed Md. Kamaluddin,Sayed Md. Sarwaruddin, Sayed Md. Golam Kibria and Sayed Md. Golam Raman therefrom and then took them to the Torture Centre of Al- Badar Bahini situated in Dalim Hotel at Anderkilla under Kotowali Police Station. Thereafter, under your direction the members of Al- Badar Bahini confined those unarmed civilians therein tortured them till 15th December, 1971, and they were subsequently released on 16th December therefrom on the Victory Day of Bangladesh.’

‘Therefore, you are charged for abetting and facilitating the offences of abduction, confinement, and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed the commission of offence of crimes against humanity as specified under section 3(2)(a), 3(2)(a)(g) and 3(2)(a)(h) of the Act.’

‘You are also liable for commission of above offences under Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.’ 

In support of his charge, prosecution examined P.W.18 S.M.Jamal Uddin who is one of the victims .At present he is aged about 75 years and during the war of liberation he was aged about 33 years old. He in his evidence said that on 29th November 1971 at about 4/ 4.30 a.m. the members of Al-Badar Bahini entered

into his dwelling hut and arrested him. He was brought in front of N.M.C. High School. Nurul Quddus, Nurul Hasem, Nurul Huda, Nasir and many otehrs were also arrested and brought in front of the said school. Similarly, Ishkander and Zakaria were brought

in front of the said school. Thereafter, they were shifted to Hotel Dalim. This witness was kept confined in a room of ground floor of Hotel Dalim. He found 3 / 4 dead bodies lying in Hotel Dalim. He has given descriptions of the dealings of the appellant and his Badar bahini with him and others with the following words:

 Avgv‡`i hLb AvUK ivLv n‡qwQj ZLb kxZKvj wQj Ges Avgv‡`i AvUKK…Z i“‡gi

†g‡S‡Z cvwb †X‡j †`Iqv n‡qwQj| hLb Avgiv fxZ m¤¢¯— n‡q cªvY f‡q Avj−vni bvg WvKwQjvg ZLb e`i evwnbxi †jv‡Kiv hviv i“‡gi eviv›`v w`‡q nvUvnvwU KiwQj Zviv ejwQj Avj−vni bvg †W‡K jvf bvB, Bw›`iv MvwÜi bvg bvI| Avwg hLb cvwbi Z…òvq Avj- e`i m`m¨‡`i Kv‡Q cvwb Pw”Qjvg

ZLb Avj- e`i m`m¨iv cªkªve K‡i Zv cvb Kivi Rb¨ Avgv‡`i mvg‡b w`Z| †h Lvevi ¸‡jv Avgv‡`i‡K mieivn Kiv n‡Zv Zv Avgv‡`i‡K bv w`‡q Avj- e`i evwnbxi m`m¨ivB †L‡q †dj‡Zv|

AvUK nIqvi 3 / 4 w`b c‡i Avgv‡K wbPZjv †_‡K †PvL †eu‡a †nv‡U‡ji Z„Zxq Zjvq GKwU K‡¶ wb‡q hvq Ges †mLv‡b wb‡q wM‡q Avgvi †Pv‡Li evuaY Ly‡j †`q| †PvL †Lvjvi ci †mLv‡b Avj-

e`i KgvÛvi gxi Kv‡kg Avjx I †kv‡qe Avjx‡K †`Ljvg| †mLv‡b Avgv‡K nvZ cv †eu‡a cv

Dci w`K K‡i Qv‡`i †Kvb GKwU As‡ki mv‡_ Szwj‡q †mLv‡b Dcw¯nZ e`i evwnbxi m`m¨iv B‡jKwU«K Iqvi w`‡q wcUv‡Z ïi“ K‡i Ges wRÁvmv K‡i gyw³ evwnbxi Kv‡K Kv‡K Pvu`v w`‡q‡Qv Zv RvbvI| wbh©vZ‡bi GK ch©v‡q Avj- e`i evwnbxi m`m¨iv Avgv‡K bvwg‡q gxi Kv‡kg Avjxi wb‡`©‡k jvw_ †g‡i wmuwo‡Z †d‡j †`q Ges Avwg Mov‡Z Mov‡Z wb P c‡ hvB| ZLb Avwg cªPÛ R¡‡i Avµvš— wQjvg| Avj- e`‡ii KgvÛvi wQ‡jb gxi Kv‡kg Avjx|Ó

He got released from the camp of Al- Badar Bahini on 13th December 1971.

 In cross examination he said that earlier he

was acquainted with the name of Mir Quashem Ali. He denied the defence suggestion that it is not true that he never saw Mir Quashem Ali and he was not Al- Badar commander. 

P.W.8 Iskender Alam Chowdhury another victim witness corroborated the testimony of victim P.W.18 stating that on 29th November, 1971 he was arrested

by the members of Al-Badar bahini and Pak-army and brought in front of Mosque where he found Salahuddin, S.M. Jamaluddin (P.W.18) Abu Zafar and Zakaria, wherefrom, they were brought to Hotel Dalim. P.W.12

Md. Hasan in his evidence said that he was arrested

by the members of Al-Badar bahini and brought in front of Mosque where he found Md. Iskander. P.W. 18 S.M. Jamal Uddin, Md. Salahuddin and 12 others who were also arrested. Wherefrom, they were brought to hotel Dalim. P.W.19 S.M. Sarwaruddin in his evidence said that the victim P.W.18 S.M.Jamaluddin along with Kamaluddin, Imran, Kibria and Osman were arrested by

the members of Al-Badar bahini and Pak-army and they

were brought in front of N.M.C. High School. Thereafter, they were shifted to hotel Dalim through a truck. P.Ws.8,12 19 in their evidence fully corroborated the testimony of P.W.18.

We do not find any material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.18, P.W.8, P.W.12 and P.W.19 so far as it relates to charge No.9.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge No.9 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Charge No.10

The charge is as under:

‘That on the following of 29th November, 1971 at about 4.30/5.00 a.m. you Mir Quashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town

Unit and/or a member of group of individuals made a plan and directed your cohorts, the armed members of Al- Badar Bahini who surrounded the area of Nazirbari, abducted Md. Zakaria, Md. Salahuddin aalias Chutgtu Miah, Iskander Alam Chowdhury, Md. Nazim Uddin along with many others therefrom and then took said four civilians to infront of N.M.C. High School first and them they were taken to the Torture Centre of Al- Badar Bahini situated in Dalim Hotel at Anderkilla under Kotowali Police Station. Thereafter, under your direction the members of Al- Badar Bahini confined those four persons therein tortured. The victim Msd. Nazimuddin was released from the Torture Centre on 30th November, 1971 as he was under age, and after 7/8 days victim Md. Zzakaria was released on the request of his father and uncle, and another victim Md. Salahuddin alias Chuttu Miah was released on 11/12th December, 1971, on the request of his relative, and finally the victim Iskander Alam Chowdhury was relesed from the said Torture Centre on 16th December, 1971, the Victory Day of Bangladesh.

Therefore, you are charged for abetting and facilitating the offences of abduction, confinement, and torture as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed the commission of offence of crimes against humanity as specified under section 3(2)(a), 3(2)(a)(g) and 3(2)(a)(h) of the Act.

You are also liable for commission of above offences under Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.’

In support of this charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of   P.W.8, Iskander Alam Chowdhury, P.W. 10 Md.  Zakairia, P.W. 11 Nazim Uddin P.W.1 Sayed Md. Emran and P.W.9 Md. Salauddin @ Chutu Miah and P.W. 12 Md. Md. Hasan.

P.W.8  Iskender Alam Chowdhury , a Diploma Engineer, who was aged about 23 years during the war of liberation, in his evidence said that with the intention to participate in the war of liberation , he returned home from Pakistan and participated in different fights against the Pakistani Army with other freedom fighters. On 29.11.1971, at about 4.00 a.m., members of Al-Badar Bahini and Pakistani Army surrounded his house and arrested him. They brought him in front of a Mosque where he found P.W.9 Salauddin, P.w.11 Nazim Uddin, P.W.10 Jakaria and Jafar under arrest and, thereafter, they were taken in front of N.M.C. Model High School wherefrom they were shifted to Dalim Hotel, Torture Cell of Al- Badar Bahini. They kept this witness confined in a small room of the ground floor of the Hotel along with others. In his evidence, he added- ÒHi“‡g hvevi ci

†Kvb GKRb †jvK ej‡jv , Lvb †Kv_vq ? Dˇi †KD GKRb ej‡jv gxi Kv‡kg Avjx mv‡ne Avwg AvmwQ| Gici GKRb Avgvi K‡¶ cª‡ek K‡i Dch~©cwi wKj-Nywl jvw_ †g‡i †d¬v‡i  †d‡j †`q Ges B‡jKwU«K Iqvi w`‡q wcUv‡Z ïi“ K‡i| GB mgq Avwg K‡jgv co‡Z _vwK| GKch©v‡q wbhv©ZbKvix‡`i g‡a¨ GKRb Avgvi †Pv‡Li evuab Ly‡j  †`Iqvi c‡i Avwg gxi Kv‡kg Avjxmn Av‡iK Rb‡K †`L‡Z cvB whwb m¤¢eZ c~‡e© D‡j−wLZ Lvb n‡Z cv‡i|

‡PvL †Lvjvi c‡i gxi Kv‡kg Avjx Avgvi Kv‡Q †_‡K gyw³‡hv×v Ges Zv‡`i NvwU m¤ú‡K© Z_¨ Rvb‡Z Pvq| wKš‘ Avwg ‡Kvb Z_¨ bv †`Iqvi  †cªw¶‡Z gxi Kv‡kg

Avjx Ges H i“‡g Ae¯nvbKvix †jvKRb Avgvi Dci Avevi wbh©vZb ïi“ K‡i| G ch©v‡q gxi Kv‡kg Avjx ej‡jv Avwg hw` gyw³‡hv×v‡`i  Ae¯nvb m¤ú‡K© Z_¨ bv †`B Zvn‡j Avgv‡K †g‡i KY©dzjx b`x‡Z †d‡j †`‡e| Gici Avgv‡K Wvwjg †nv‡U‡ji †`vZjv †_‡K wbPZjvq wb‡q Avmv nq| G Ae¯nvq Avwg g„Zz¨i cªni ¸b‡Z _vwK|

1971 mv‡ji 15 wW‡m¤^i Wvwjg †nv‡U‡j Avj e`i evwnbx †jvKR‡bi Avbv†Mvbv K‡g G‡m‡Q e‡j eyS‡Z cvwi| ciw`b 16 wW‡m¤^i mKv‡j ¯nvbxq †jvKRb Wvwjg †nv‡U‡j G‡m Avgiv †h K‡¶ AvUKK…Z Ae¯nvq wQjvg Zvi `iRv †f‡½ Avg ‡`i‡K D×vi K‡i ---- -------- | Ó

In his cross examination this witness said that he returned from Pakistan  through  PIA  and, thereafter, he went to his house in Chittagong by road, launch and finally by train. At that time, Road and Railway communications were collapsed. He went to Chandpur from Sadarghat by Launch. In his cross examination he denied the defence suggestion that since he fled away  from Pakistan Airforce he was arrested and kept confined in jail hajot. He also denied the defence suggestion that it is not true that after arrest he was not kept confined in a room of Hotel Dalim and one of the members of Badar Bahini

asked, “where is Khan?” Responding, another member said “gxi Kv‡kg Avjx mve AvmwQ”. He also denied the defence suggestion that he was not tortured in Hotel Dalim. P.w.9 Salauddin @ Chutu Mia was aged about 17 years

in 1971. He was arrested by the members of Al-Badar Bahini. He found that Jakaria, Nazim and Iskendar were also arrested. They were brought to N.M.C. Model High School and thereafter, shifted to hotel Dalim. In his evidence, he said “Wvwjg †nv‡U‡ji mvg‡b hvIqvi ci Avj-e`iv Avg‡`i‡K U«vK †_‡K bvwg‡q †PvL †eu‡a †d‡j Ges Wvwjg †nv‡U‡ji wfZ‡i wb‡q

GKwU K‡¶i Zvjv Ly‡j Avgv‡`i‡K †mLv‡b †XvKvq| ZLb †mLv‡b Av‡M †_‡K AvUKK…Z †jvK‡`i KvbœvKvwU ïb‡Z cvB| K‡¶ XzwK‡q Avj e`iiv evB‡i †_‡K Zvjv †g‡i P‡j hvq| ILv‡b AvUK

Kivi 2/ 3 w`b ci †Kvb GK iv‡Z `iRv Ly‡j B‡jKwU«K Iqvi w`‡q G‡jvcv_vwo fv‡e Avgv‡`i †cUv‡Z _v‡K| Gi 4/ 5 w`b ci ‡KD GKRb Avgv‡`i i“‡g cª‡ek K‡i| Avgvi bvg a‡i Wv‡K|

hLb Avwg WvK ï‡b Zvi mvg‡b Dcw¯nZ njvg ZLb †jvKwU Avgvi †PvL Ly‡j Avgv‡K †`‡L Avevi Avgvi †PvL †eu‡a Wvwjg †nv‡U‡ji Dc‡i wb‡q hvq Ges H †jvKwU Avgv‡K e‡j †h, ÔAvgv‡`i KgvÛvi gxi Kv‡kg Avjx †Zvgv‡K wRÁvmv Ki‡e †K _vq gyw³evwnbx Ae¯nvb Ki‡Q Ges †Kv_vq †Kv_vq A¯¿ jyKv‡bv Av‡QÕ| Gici Avwg gxi Kv‡kg Avjxi mvg‡b †M‡j †m Avgv‡K wRÁvmv K‡i, Ôe‡jv †Kv_vq A¯¿ Av‡Q Ges gyw³evwnbxiv †Kv_vq Av‡Q, bv ej‡j †Zvgv‡K †K‡U UzK‡iv UzK‡iv K‡i KY©dzjx b`x‡Z fvwm‡q †`eÕ| Avwg  †Kvb Z_¨ bv w`‡j gxi Kv‡kg Avjx Dcw¯nZ Avj-e`i‡`i‡K e‡j I‡K fv‡jv K‡i †avjvB K‡iv|  Gi ci Avj-e`iiv Avgv‡K wbh©vZb Ki‡Z _v‡K| Gi wKQy¶Y ci Avgv‡K †eu‡a Avevi Avgv‡K †n ‡U‡ji wb‡Pi K‡¶ wb‡q hvq|” . He denied the defence suggestion that he was

not kept confined in a room of hotel Dalim and,

thereafter, he was brought before Mir Kashem Ali who asked him about the whereabouts of Muktibahini and their arms and, thereafter, Quasem Ali uttered that after killing him his dead body would be thrown into river of Karnafuli and that Mir Kashem Ali directed the  members  of  Al-Badar  bahini  to  assault  him. Another victim, witness P.W.10 Md. Jakaria in his evidence said that he was aged about 30 /32 years during War of Liberation. He said that 5 / 7 days after Eid-Ul-Fitr held in 1971 he was arrested by the members of Al-Badar Bahini. They brought him in infront of a Mosque  where he found P.W.8 Iskendar, P.W.9 Salauddin , P.W.11 Nazim and others who were also arrested by the members of Al-Badar bahini. Thereafter, they brought those victims in front of N.M.C. school and then to hotel Dalim by a truck.  They were confined in a room on the ground floor of the said hotel where they found other prisoners. Two days thereafter, his brother Iskendar was taken to the first floor of the said hotel who was brutally tortured. He heard the sound of crying. Thereafter, this witness was taken to the first floor. He narrated the subsequent facts with the following words:

ÔhLb Avwg Dc‡ii Zjvq hvw”Qjvg ZLb Avgvi fvB G‡¯‹›`vi‡K †`vZjvq eviv›`vi wmuwo‡Z µ›`biZ Ae¯nvq †`L‡Z cvB| †`vZjvq wb‡q Avj-e`iiv Avgv‡K gyw³evwnbx †Kv_vq Av‡Q ev A¯¿ †Kv_vq Av‡Q GB Z_¨ ¸‡jv †`Iqvi Rb¨ Pvc cª‡qvM Ki‡Z _v‡K| Avwg AcivMZv cªKvk Ki‡j Avj-e`iiv Avgv‡K wbh©vZb Ki‡Z ïi“ K‡i|G ch©v‡q Av‡iKUv †jvK G‡m GKB Z_¨ Rvb‡Z Pvq|  GeviI Avgvi AcivMZv   cªKvk Kivq AvMZ †jvKwU Avj-e`i‡`i‡K e‡j, ÔAvevi wcUvIÕ ZLb Avj-e`iiv AveviI Avgvi Dci wbh©vZb ïi“ K‡i| Gici Avgv‡K Avevi

wb‡Pi K‡¶ wb‡q hvq| †h Avj-e`iiv Avgv‡K G‡Zv¶Y hveZ wbh©vZb KiwQj Zv‡`i G‡K Ac‡ii mv‡_ K_v ejvewj †_‡K Rvb‡Z cvwi †h, †h †jvKwU cieZx©‡Z G‡m Avevi wcUvI e‡j Dw³wU K‡iwQj Zvi bvg gxi Kv‡kg Avjx| Õ

In his cross examination he denied the defence suggestion that the statements quoted above are not

true. P.W. 11 Md. Nizam Uddin was aged about 40

years in 1971. He is an Arts graduate. In his evidence he said that the members of Al-Badar Bahini surrounded his house and arrested him. They brought

him infront of Mosque where he found his brother Choto Miah , Jakaria and others. From there, they

were brought to N.M.C. Model High School and then to

hotel Dalim by truck and kept confined in a room where he found other prisoners. They were brutally tortured. He said ÔAvnZ e¨w³iv Avgv‡K ejj, ÔÕ†Zvgv‡KI Gfv‡e wbh©vZb Kiv n‡e Õ | GK_v ï‡b Avwg f‡q Kvu`‡Z _vwK| wbh©vZb e¨w³iv Av‡iv ejwQj GUv gxi Kv‡kg Avjxi †bZ…‡Z¡ GKwU wbh©vZb †K›`ª| Gi 3/ 4 w`b ci Avj- e`‡ii †jvKRb G‡m Avgv‡K i“g †_‡K

†ei K‡i gxi Kv‡kg Avjxi Kv‡Q wb‡q hvq| gxi Kv‡kg Avjxi wbK‡U Avgv‡K Dcw¯nZ Ki‡j

†m Avgvi wbKU gyw³‡hv×v‡`i m¤ú‡K© Z_¨ Rvb‡Z Pvq|Õ In cross examination he denied the defence suggestion that Mir Quasem Ali was not the leader of said torture cell and this witness was  produced before him. P.W.1 in his evidence corroborated the testimony of those victims witnesses. In his evidence, P.W.12 Md. Hasan, who was aged boy of 19 years in 1971, said that the members of Al-Badar Bahini surrounded his house and arrested him along with Professor Moulana Nurul Islam his father Abdus Satter , Nurul Kuddus, Nurul Hashem, Md. Ibrahim, Abdul Hakim, Idris, Md. Shafi and 25 others and brought them in front of N.M.C. Model High School under the leadership of Mir Quasem Ali. In his evidence he further said that he also found Syed Md. Emran , Sayed Md. Jamal , Syed Md. Sarowar, Syed Md. Kamal, Md. Ishkender, Md. Nazim, Md. Salauddin and 10/ 12 others who were arrested by the members of Al-Badar Bahini . He said that he was released due to his age. In his cross examination he denied the defence suggestion that at the time of his arrest Mir Quashem Ali was not present and persons confined were not tortured.

From the evidence stated above, it appears that the P.W.8, 9, 10 and 11 are injured witnesses, they were brutally tortured by the members of Al-Badar

Bahini including the appellant. They corroborated each other as to date, time, manner of occurrence. We do not find anything to disbelieve testimonies of these witnesses. We are of the view, that the prosecution had been able to prove charge No.10 against the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt.

Charge No.11

The charge is as follows:

‘That at any time after the Eid-ul-Fitre day held in 1971, you Mir Quashem Ali being the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha, Chittagong Town Unit and or a member of group of individuals made a plan and at your instance the members of Al-Badar Bahini having abducted Jasim, a freedom-fighter, from an unknown place of Chittagong town, took him to the Torture Centre of Al-Badar Bahini situated in Dalim Hotel at Anderkilla under Kotowali police station. Thereafter on 28th November, 1971 under your direction and hint, the members of Al-Badar Bahini having confined him therein tortured to death and then his dead body along with 5(five) other dead bodies of unknown persons, who were also tortured to death by the members of Al-Badar Bahini, were thrown into the Karnafuli river.

Therefore, you are hereby charged for abetting and facilitating the offences of abduction, confinement, torture and murder as crimes against humanity and thereby you have substantially contributed the commission of offences of crimes against humanity as specified under section 3(2)(a), 3(2)(a)(g) and 3(2)(a)(h) of the Act.

You are also liable for commission of above offences under Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.’


In support of the charge, the prosecution has relied upon Syed Md. Emran (P.W.1), Md. Sanaullah Chowdhury (P.W.2), Nasir Uddin Chowdhury (P.W.3), Jahangir Chowdhury (P.W.16), Hasina Khatun (P.W.17) and S.M. Sanowar Uddin (P.W.19) and also relied upon S.M. Jamal Uddin (P.W.18), Lutfar Rahman Faruq (P.W.20) and Nurul Islam (P.W.24) to prove circumstantial evidence. Besides it has also relied upon some documentary evidence.

Analysis of the evidence

P.W.1 stated that he had studied at Chittagong Collegiate School and his classmates in that school were former Minister Dr. Afsarul Amin, Moinuddin Khan Badal and the accused Mir Quashem Ali. He claimed that he participated in the liberation struggle as a freedom fighter against Pakistani occupation army and the commander of his force was engineer Afsar Uddin. Their task was to keep the Pak army at tensed situation and killing of collaborators and disruptinig the communication system etc. In confirmity with their responsibilities, they involved in direct fight with Al-Badar forces and without any loss they defeated the forces. He narrated the incidents in respect of charge Nos.7, 9 and 10 and then stated that at one stage, he was detained and

taken to the Dalim Hotel which was converted as Al- Badars torture camp and in course of discussions with other detainees namely, Sanaullah Chowdhury, Zahangir Alam Chowdhury and advocate Shafiul Alam Chowhdury, he came to know that on 28th November, 1971, the Al- Badar forces tortured one freedom fighter in the room where they were staying and killed him. His name was Jasim Uddin, a resident of Sandwip, who was a minor freedom fighter. He came to know about the name of that freedom fighter from an employee of the camp (Swapan). Sanaullah Chowdhury knew Jasim Uddin from before. They also came to know that the Al-Badar forces killed 3/4 hostages in another room and threw their dead bodies into Karnofuli river. He came to know about the killing of Jasim Uddin from Swapan.

He was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. He stated that he knew about the Dalim Hotel since 1969. It was a residential hotel. He expressed his ignorance about the identity of Matiur Rahman alias Moitta Gunda Razakar. He made positive statements that at any point of time he had heard any Razakar named Matiur Rahman. He denied the defence suggestion that before 29th November, Bibirhat Razakars Camp’s commander had been attacked under his command or that in the said attack Jasim Uddin died. By giving this suggestion, the defence has practically admitted the status of this witness as a veteran freedom fighter as well as the killing of Jasim, who was also a freedom  fighter.  We  fail  to  understand  why  the defence gave this suggestion, inasmuch as, after this suggestion, there is hardly any scope on the part of the defence to deny the killing of young freedom fighter Jasim Uddin unless it proved the manner of killing of Jasim Uddin that he was killed at the encounter with Razakars at Bibirhat Razakars camp. He admitted that under his planning the freedom fighters attacked Razakars and Al-Badars camps from Baddarhat to Balirhat area near Khaja Road by forming different groups. He also admitted that in the similar manner, there was a fight at Chatgaon area on 29th November.

The defence did not at all give any suggestion to this witness denying the said positive statements with the result that it had totally accepted his above positive assertions. He denied the defence suggestion that the appellant Mir Quashem Ali was appointed as General Secretary of East Pakistan Islami Chattra Sangha or that after 7th November, 1971 he stayed at Dhaka. He then made positive statement that after 7th November, 1971, Mir Quashem Ali stayed at Chittagong all along. This statement also suggestive that Mir Quashem Ali never stayed at Dhaka after 7th November. He also denied the defence suggestion that in course of operation at Balirhat area, he was arrested. He denied the defence suggestion that Dalim Hotel was not used as torture centre of Al-Badar forces or that it was controlled by Mir Quashem Ali or that Motiur Rahman alias Moitta Gunda controlled the said house. By these suggestions also the defence has impliedly admitted the positive claim of the prosecution that Dalim Hotel was used by the Al-Badars as its torture centre, inasmuch as, the defence could not establish that there was existence of one Motiur Rahman Razakar, who was in charge of Dalim Hotel or that he was involved in all the atrocities committed in the said centre.

P.W.2 was an employee of Chittagong Deputy Commissioner’s office. He stated that on one occasion on 27th November, 1971, he was gossiping with neighbours Habibur Rahman, his brother-in-law Zafar Ahmed and Elias, and at that point of time, some one knocked at the door and as soon as the door was opened, 7/8 armed civilians trespassing into the house detained them on the point of arms and searched the house. They took one two-in-one transistor and two books written by Abul Kashem and thereafter, took them to Dalim Hotel by blindfolding their eyes. They were taken into a room in the second floor. They could not trace out in which room Elias was taken. Later on they removed their veil of their eyes and saw other detainees who were kept on blindfolded condition. Some of them were trembling on the floor, of them, they could recognize advocate Shamsul Islam and Shah Alam.

In support of charge No.11 he stated that, sometimes thereafter he saw that a person was thrown inside their room by kicking from his backside. The person  was  screaming.  He  was  known  to  advocate Shafiul  Alam,  who  with  Jahangir  helped  him  sit leaning towards the wall. On the following day they heard the screaming of the victims on the roof top due to torture. At one stage sounds of screaming disappeared and sometimes thereafter, a person was taken into their room. At that time someone told the Al-Badar commander that the person was still alive, who directed to throw him inside so that other detainees could realize the consequence if they did not disclose the truth. At one stage the boy was thrown inside their room, when advocate Shafiul Alam whispering slowly that the leader was Mir Quashem Ali, Bangalee Khan commander of Badar Bahini. The boy who was thrown inside the room was on critical condition and on seeing his condition, advocate Shafiul Alam Khan hugged him and told them that he was Swandip’s minor freedom fighter Jasim. Sometimes, thereafter, the boy died on the lap of Shafiul Alam. All of them were remorseful on seeing the brutality of the incident. After the dusk Al-Badars took the dead body of the boy.

This witness corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 as regards the identification of Jasim saying that in the camp the duty boy Swapan intimated them that Jasim was tortured on the roof top of the building and his dead body along with Tuntu Sen and 4/5 others was thrown into the Karnofuli river. He stated that when he was detained at Dalim Hotel, Mir Quashem Ali

interrogated him and that the torture of the victims was perpetrated in presence of Quashem Ali. In course of cross-examination, he replied to a query that the head office of Al-Badars camp was set up at Dalim Hotel. He stated that he knew Dalim Hotel from before the war of liberation. The second and third floors were used as hotel. In reply to an another query made by the defence, he stated that he did not see the Pakistani army or Beharis in the Dalim Hotel. By this statement, he reasserted his claim that Dalim Hotel was under the control of the appellant Mir Quashem Ali, who was the commander; and that all atrocities and killings were perpetrated under his direction and command. He denied the defence suggestion that Mir Quashem Ali did not reside in Chittagong after 7th November till the liberation of the country or that he was not the commander of Al-Badars or that he was deposing being tutored.

P.W.3 is a freedom fighter and a student of higher secondary examination during the relevant

time. He stated that after the 26th March declaration by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, he went to India for guerilla training in April and towards the mid June he entered into the country. He was a member of Bangladesh Liberation Force commonly known as Mujib Bahini. He crossed through Boalkhali and from there to Potia to Anwara to Chandanaish to Satkaniya and Bashkhali and fought with the occupation army. Towards the mid October, 1971, he came to Chittagong town and joined with the co-fighters to fight with the occupation forces. At that time, he took shelter at Mohaddes Vhila of Andar killa owned by Nazir Ahmed Chowdhury. That house was situated near Dalim Hotel which was used as Al-Badars’ head quarter. His secrete shelter had been leaked out towards the end of November, 1971. At dead of night the members of Al-Badar gheraoed his shelter and he was taken to Dalim Hotel on blindfolding condition and he was kept in a dark room. He was tortured by the Al-Badar forces with a view to collecting information

regarding the location of the arms that he kept and his co-fighters. As he did not disclose anything, he was taken out of the room and sometimes thereafter Mir Quashem Ali came to his room with some Al-Badar forces. Mir Quashem Ali told his forces by pointing fingers at him as to whether anything could have been collected from his lips and directed them to torture him. Thereafter, the Al-Badar forces tortured him with lathis, iron rods and electric wire and at that stage, Mir Quashem Ali wanted to know the names of co-fighters, their shelter and their arms. As he did not give any reply he was tortured severely causing serious bleeding injuries and then they left.

 In support of charge No.11, he stated that he found one Swapan who was an employee of Al-Badar forces. This Swapan stated that on the top floor of Dalim Hotel, freedom fighter Jasim, Tuntu Sen, Ranjit Das were tortured to death and their dead bodies were thrown into Karnofuli river and that Mir Kashem Ali directly supervised the killing. In course of cross-

examination he stated that Mir Quasem Ali sustained injury on 6th December, 1971 and since that date till the date of liberation of the country, he did not see Quashem Ali in Dalim Hotel. In reply to a query of the court, he stated that the previous name of the hotel was Mohamaya Hotel and in 1971, Islami Chatta Sangha took control of the Hotel and renamed it as Dalim Hotel. He stated that in Chittagong Al-Sham’s forces camp was set up at Fazlur Quader Chowdhury’s goodshill house and another was at Tower hotel. He denied the defence suggestion that Dalim Hotel was under the control of Matiur Rahman Razakar and that a case was instituted against him after the liberation of Bangladesh. Therefore, this suggestion impliedly supports the prosecution case.

P.W.16 Jahangir Alam Chowdhury is also a veteran freedom fighter. He was the Deputy Leader of Chittagong Joy Bangla Force. He stated that after the declaration of independence by Bangabandhu, he joined the liberation forces. He narrated about his training and participation at different fronts of guerilla operation. About two days after Eid of 1971, the Pak army declared curfew and Al-Badar forces gheraoed Kadamtali area. He was taken out of the house by folding his hands towards backside at Dalim Hotel where Badar Bahinis’ camp was established. He was kept on the veranda of Dalim Hotel and tortured by the forces, and thereafter, he was taken into a room in the ground floor. He found the detainees there, amongst them, his young brother Dastagir Chowdhury and neighbour Mofiz. He concealed his identity to them and at dusk Nurul Afsar and Abul Kashem threw advocate Shafiul Alam into their room and locked the door from outside. There was profuse bleeding through the mouth of Shafiul Alam. At that time Mir Quashem Ali and Nurul Afsar told Shafiul Alam that the others would get lesson on seeing his condition. Thereafter, they helped Shafiul Alam sit leaning towards the wall. One day at noon, Nurul Afsar, Mir Quashem Ali and Jalal brought 14/15 years old boy Jasim of

 P.W.17 Hasina Khatun is the cousin of victim Jasim. She stated that she was the editor of a weekly and owned a press under the name ‘Progoti Printing Press.’ She stated that Jasim was a student of intermediate. He was a freedom fighter and he used to come to their home regularly. On the occasion of Eid in 1971, Jasim came to her house to relish polao, kurma. Despite limitations she served him by cooking polao and after relishing the foods, Jasim prayed to Almighty to give her such wealth which would allow her to relish polao, kurma throughout her life. At the time of his departure Jasim sought her blessings so that they could achieve their goal by liberating the country. After liberation as Jasim did not return she was perturbed and searched the whereabouts of Jasim. At one stage, she met advocate Shafiul Alam and asked about Jasim. Shafiul Alam wanted no know whether she was asking about Sandwip’s house. When she replied in affirmative, Shafiul Alam told her that when he was detained at Dalim Hotel, Jasim was also  detained  in  the  same  room,  and  under  the leadership of Mir Quashem Ali Al-Badar force members tortured him to death. Shafiful Alam further told

In course of cross-examination, she stated that Jasim was 10/12 years younger to her. She expressed her ignorance as to whether Jasim was detained by Pakistani force. By this suggestion, the defence has practically admitted the prosecution’s claim of detention and killing. She stated that Jasim had four brothers and three sisters, of them, one brother Dr. Rajib Humayan is the professor of Dhaka Univesity. She stated that the worker of Dalim Hotel Swapan could not be traced out after the liberation war. In a reply to a query, she stated that throughout her lifetime she would remember the memory of commander Mir Quashem Ali.

P.W.18 S.M. Jamal Uddin stated that on 29th November, 1971, at about 4 a.m, some Al-Badar forces entered into his house and detained him along with other brothers and took them to N.M.C. High School field. On reaching there he saw Nurul Quddus, Nurul Hashem, Nurul Huda, Nasir and others who were also brought there. Two trucks were kept standing infront of the school and all the detainees were taken to Dalim Hotel with those trucks. They were kept in a room on the ground floor. When he reached to the room, he found 3/4 dead bodies and after removing the

veil of his eyes, he saw Al-Badar leader Mir Quashem Ali. He was tortured as per direction of Mir Quashem Ali. He was examined to prove circumstantial evidence that Dalim Hotel was used as torture center which was commanded by Mir Quashem Ali.

P.W.19 S.M. Sarwaruddin was a 12th standard student during the liberation period. On 29th November, 1971, he along with his cousin Emran (P.W.1) was sleeping in the house. At 4 a.m, some people knocked at the door and on opening the door, some civilians with two Pak army and one Al-Badar member entered into the house. They tortured him, and thereafter, they tied their hands towards backside and were taken to N.M. High School compound, and thereafter, from there the Al-Badar force took them to Badar forces headquarters. At night Mir Quashem Ali and his forces tortured him and wanted to know whether he knew Emran. He also asked about the whereabouts of freedom fighters, their arms and whether he joined the freedom fight. When he denied

his involvement, as per order of Kashem, the Al-Badar forces tortured him. This witness was also examined to prove the circumstantial evidence. P.W.20 also deposed to support circumstantial evidence. Same is the statements with regard to P.W.24 Md. Nurul Islam.

Defence Witnesses

Momtaz Nur Uddin (D.W.1) is the younger sister of the accused. She stated that her brother came to her Dhaka residence in the first week of November, 1971. In 1972 March she along with her husband shifted to Commilla as her husband got a job at Comilla College. Her brother left her Dhaka residence in March 1972 and went elsewhere. Till she left for Comilla in the first week of November, 1971, her brother was staying with her at Dhaka. In course of cross-examination, she stated that her father resided at  Comilla  in  connection  with  his  service.  Her brother was staying with her father. She could not say when her father came to Comilla. She then said, her brother came to Dhaka to give her company. She stated that when she left for Comilla, her bother left for Comilla to stay with her father. On perusal of her statements we find apparent inconsistency in her testimony. She stated in chief that her bother left elsewhere in March 1972 from her residence of Agamoshi Lane, Dhaka but in cross-examination she stated that at the time of her departure her brother also left Dhaka to stay with his father in Comilla. She did not explain where her brother stayed before November 1971. He was then a bachelor. If he came in the first week of November 1971 to give company to her and if he left for Comilla in 1972, certainly Mir Quashem Ali stayed with his father at Comilla but documentary evidence along with the oral evidence clearly showed that he was in Chittagong during the relevant time.

Mohammad Ali (D.W.2) stated in chief that he was a freedom fighter and came to Chittagong after taking training during the liberation struggle period. When staying at a secret home in Chittagong, he came to know that Dalim Hotel was set up as torture center, which was under the control of Motiur Rahman Moti with some Razakars; that said Matiur Rahman was involved in antisocial activities with the help of some Beharis and tortured the innocent people in the said centre. In course of cross-examination he stated that he along with his other mates numbering four were provided with sten guns to each of them and an ammunition box. In the month of November, they did not involve in any operation at Chittagong and in the first week of December, they attacked a petrol pump. He expressed his ignorance that Mir Quashem Ali was a prominent leader of Islami Chattra Sangha or that he was involved with Al-Badar activities or that the leaders or the workers of Islami Chattra Sangha became the members of Al-Badar forces. He further stated that till September before he left for training, he was in Chittagong town. He could not say whether Shanti Committee was raised with the members of Muslim League and Jamat-e-Islami; that in

The statements of this witness are self- explanatory as regards the veracity of his testimony and no further explanation is necessary. Even he did not know that Mir Quashem Ali was a prominent leader of Islami Chattra Sangha. He did not admit the involvement of Muslim League and Jamat-e-Islami leaders in the Shanti Committee. Even he did not admit the existence of Razakars, Al-Badars and Al- Shams, and their atrocious activities in Chitagong. How much interested a witness he is will be evident from the above statements? Though he claims as a freedom fighter, in fact he is apparently a member of the same force which committed atrocities in Chitagong, otherwise he could admit at least Mir Quashem Ali’s status as the President/Secretary of

Islami Chatra Sangha, Chittagong chapter. He is absolutely partisan and biased witness. So, no reliance can be placed upon this witness.

Abu Taher Khan (D.W.3) claimed that he was employed at Railway Engineering Department as store clerk in Chittagong in 1971. He claimed that he was deposing on behalf of Mir Quashem Ali as per request of his son Barrister Arman, who requested him to say something about Mir Quashem Ali, as he was a freedom fighter since there was allegation against his father that he was operating the torture centre at Dalim Hotel. He stated that Dalim Hotel was used as torture center by Motiur Rahman and his accomplices in 1971 and innocent people were tortured there. He produced exhibits A, B, C and D, some information, slips and documents. In course of cross-examination he stated that except Chatra League, he had no acquaintance with Chatra Sangha or other student leaders. He then said, he knew Mir Quashem Ali for the first time in 1983, when he became the Director of Islami Bank in

connection  with  his  visitation  to  the  bank  for bringing an advertisement in his magazine. He denied the defence suggestion that Dalim Hotel was under the control of Mir Quashem Ali, which was used as Al- Badar’s torture center or that Mir Quashem Ali was the commander of Al-Badar forces or that in 1971 Al- Badars, Al-Shams members captured the supporters of pro-liberation, tortured and killed them at Dalim Hotel. He also expressed his ignorance as to whether Jamat-e-Islami members formed shanti committee. He admitted that he heard Gulam Azam’s name but he expressed his ignorance as to whether Gulam Azam was in the Shanti Committee. He denied the prosecution suggestion that in 1971, Gulam Azam was the Ameer of Jamat-e-Islami. He expressed his ignorance as to whether in the Central Shanti Committee, the members of Muslim League, Jamat-e-Islami, PDP, Nezam-i-Islami and their leaders were included. He also expressed his ignorance whether in goodshill Chitagong, Circuit House, Stadium, Doshbarman Building, Dalim Hotel etc. were used as camps of Pakistani army, Al-Badars, Al- Shams, Razakars as torture centers.

 A plain reading of his testimony clearly reveals that he is also a partisan witness, inasmuch as, he has totally denied the involvement of leaders of Muslim League, Jamat-e-Islami, PDP, Nezam-iIslami in the formation of Shanti Committee at Chittagong. Even he denied the existence of the camps set up by Al-Badars, Al-Shams, Razakars and Pakistani army at Goodshill, Circuit House, Stadium, Dalim Hotel and other places. Like D.W.2, he also did not admit the complicity of Razakars, Al-Badars, Al-Shams in the killing of innocent persons in Chittagong. If he was involved in East Pakistan Railways Employees League, Chittagong Unit, and involved in liberation struggle as claimed, it is unbelievable story that he would not know Mir Qushem Ali, who was admittedly the president of Islami Chattra Sangha, Chitagon chapter. Even he was not prepared to admit Gulam Azam’s role in 1971.

If the statements of these three witnesses are taken to be true, it may be inferred that there was no anti-liberation forces in 1971 formed/raised with the members Muslim League, Jamat-e-Islami, Nezam-i- Islami, PDP, Islami Chattra Sangha and that only Pakistani armies perpetrated the atrocities. Even D.W.3 denied the involvement of Pakistani force in the atrocities. If their statements are taken to be true, the history of our liberation struggle has to be re-written. The nature of the statements, the tenor, the manner and the disclosures that they made are totally absurd, imaginary and based on hypothesis. By relying upon these type of witnesses, the defence has practically denied the atrocities perpetrated by paramilitary forces raised by the anti-liberation forces with a view to frustrating the liberation struggle. The tribunal thus committed no error in ignoring their evidence. 

Findings of the tribunal

The tribunal after assessment of the evidence held that it was proved that Jasim was brutally tortured to death in confinement at Al-Badars camp at Dalim Hotel; that the killing of Jasim, a young freedom fighter in the captivity at the Al-Badar camp was the ending phase of the organized and system cruelties; that as revealed, as a practice, as routine activities at the torture and detention camp the force detained civilians, brought there on capture; that it was not practicable for any stranger at all to witness the criminal activities carried out there including the act of inflicting torture to Jasim; that even it was not feasible to see exactly at what time, how and who had dumped the dead body of Jasim to the river Karnofuli; that for this obvious reason, the prosecution in order to prove the commission of the offence of murder and accused’s culpability therewith, depends upon some detainee witnesses who had occasion to see brutally injured Jasim in their room and knew from one Swapan, a worker at the camp in respect of causing ruthless torture and dumping him; that the defence did not dispute that after the independence P.W.17 had met advocate Shafiul Alam and Saifuddin Khan for getting information about her missing brother Jasim; that advocate Shafiul Alam narrated the harrowing memoirs of his incarceration at Al-Badar camp set up at Dalim

Hotel; that from the traumatic memoir in confinement at the camp, as narrated by co-detainee advocate Shafiul Alam in his article goes to show that one afternoon, Swapan came to their room and told “brother, today five have been ‘finished’ and meanwhile being floated in the river Karnofuli and perhaps Jasim will not survive this time”; that it is proved from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 16 and 19 that ‘system cruelties’ practiced routinely at the Al-Badar camp; that under explicit guidance and inducement of accused Mir Quashem Ali, detained Jasim was tortured to death by Al-Badar members and then his dead body was dumped to the river Karnofuli; that

the nature and extent of brutality forming attack directed against civilians, as revealed, indeed demonstrates the grave antagonistic attitude of Al- Badar members and the accused Mir Quashem Ali who had been the steering capacity of them, imbued by his political ideology; that the defence documents “fË¡j¡ZÉ c¢mm-j¤¢š²k¤−Ü QVÊNË¡j fËL¡nL¡m 2012; also shows that Jasim of Sandwip is a martyr youth freedom fighter.

 It was further held that in absence of anything contrary, it is thus admitted by this document that Jasim was a freedom fighter and was killed in 1971; that accused Mir Quashem Ali had active affiliation and substantial influence over the Dalim Hotel camp and thereby he could not absolve the responsibility of the criminal acts of causing death of detainees by inflicting ruthless torture; that it has been proved that accused Mir Quashem Ali by his conscious act and conduct, instruction, order, directives, instigation, inducement forming part of attack coupled with his substantial authority participated in the commission of offence; that Jasim, a brave youth freedom fighter laid his life at this infamous Al-Badar camp in captivity due to untold barbaric torture caused to him; that such antagonistic act or conduct, culpable presence at the Al-Badar camp coupled with authority indicating ‘superior’ position are convincingly sufficient to conclude that the criminal acts that eventually caused Jasim’s killing were the outcome of ‘common purpose’ to which accused Mir Quashem Ali was a part and the murder was committed with his knowledge and that accused Mir Quashem Ali by his act and being in commanding position of the Al-Badar camp contributed substantially to the commission of murder of Jasim.

The tribunal also noticed the comments made by Prof. Golam Azam regarding the role of Mir Kashem Ali in 1971 which had been published in the ‘Daily Sangram’ in the issue of 21st June, 1971 as under:  

“Being a potential leader of ICS the student

wing of JEI accused Mir Quasem Ali also thus

sided with that ideology devoid of any extent of humanity and the core spirit of the holy religion Islam. Objective of such proposal initiated by the then JEI chief to whom the accused Mir Quasem Ali was one of loyalists by virtue of his position in the ICS was indubitably to make the antagonistic and ghastly criminal actions of Al-Badar, Razakar and other forces toughened to combat the pro-liberation Bengali civilians, ‘miscreants’ . Such malignant proposal, even in the early part of November 1971, on part of Jamat–e-Islami was again ensued.”  

It further noticed the Hussain Haqqani’s article written in ‘Pakistan Between Mosque And Military’ where he observed “Al-Badar acted as the Pakistan army’s ‘death squads’ and exterminated leading left wing professors, journalists, litterateurs and even doctors.


While evaluating the evidence, the tribunal noticed the philosophy developed in other regions on charge of crimes against humanity on hearsay evidence and approved the principles argued in Muvunyi observing as under:

“Hearsay evidence is not per se inadmissible before the Trial Chamber. However, in certain circumstances, there may be good reason for the Trial Chamber to consider whether hearsay evidence is supported by other credible and reliable evidence adduced by the Prosecution in order to support a finding of fact beyond reasonable doubt.”

The tribunal also noticed the case of Nchamihigo on the question of corroborative evidence observing that corroboration is not necessarily required and a tribunal may rely on a single witness testimony as proof of a material fact and a sole witness testimony could suffice to justify a conviction if the tribunal is convinced on the testimony of the witness beyond all reasonable doubt. It quoted with approval the

findings on the question of inconsistency in the evidence. “The  events about which the witnesses testified occurred more than a decade before the trial. Discrepancies attributable to the lapse of time or the absence of record keeping, or other satisfactory explanation, do not necessarily affect he credibility or reliability of the witnesses.............The Chamber will compare the testimony of each witness with the testimony of other witness and with the surrounding circumstances.”

It further noticed the case of Prosecutor V. Staisic and Stojan Jupljan observing that in evaluating the evidence, particularly in assessing inconsistencies and observed that the Trial Chamber took into account: the passage of time, the differences in questions put to the witnesses at different stages of investigations and in-court, and the traumatic situations in which many of the witnesses found themselves, not only during the events about which they testified, but also in many instances during their testimony before the Trial Chamber. Inconsequential inconsistencies did not lead the Trial Chamber to automatically reject evidence as unreliable.  

 It further noticed the case of Tadic and quoted with approval on the question of participation of the accused as undder: “Actual physical presence when the crime is committed is not necessary........... an accused can be considered to have participated in the commission of a crime..... if he is found to be concerned with the killing.” and concludes its finding that hearsay evidence is to be weighed in context of its credibility, relevance and circumstances. Keeping this legal position, the tribunal took the advantage to weigh the probative value of hearsay evidence of witnesses made before it in relation to charges framed against the accused.

As regards raising of Razakars, Al-Badars, Al- Shams forces during the relevant time, the tribunal quoted with approval from Sunset at Midday as under:  

‘To face the situation Razakar Force, consisting of Pro-Pakistani elements was formed. This was the first experiment in East Pakistan, which was a successful experiment. Following this strategy Razakar Force was being organized through out East Pakistan. This force was, later on Named Al-Badar and Al-Shams and Al-Mujahid. The workers belonging to purely Islami Chatra Sangha were called Al-Badar, the general patriotic public belonging to purely Islami Chatra Sangha were called Al-Badar, the general patriotic public belonging to Jamaatg-e-Islami, Muslim League, Nizam-e-Islami etc. were called Al- Shams and the Urdu-speaking generally known as Bihari were called Al-Mujahid.’ It also noticed New York Times-January 3, 1972 issue written by Fox Butterfield and quoted as under:  

“Al Badar is believed to have been the action section of Jamat-e-Islami, carefully organised after the Pakistani crackdown last March”

It also quoted with approval of the issue of Muktijudhdhe Dhaka 1971 as under:

“Avje`iiv wQj †gav m¤cbœ mk¯¿ ivR‰bwZK K¨vWvi| Bmjvgx QvÎ ms‡Ni †bZ…e„›` G evwnbx MVb K‡i Ges †K›`ªxqfv‡e Rvgvqv‡Z Bmjvgxi wbqš¿‡b G evwnbx cwiPvwjZ nq|” and concluded its argument observing that admittedly, accused Mir Quashem Ali was the President of ICS, Chittagong town till 8th November, 1971 and afterwards he was elected as the general secretary, East Pakistan ICS. However, despite this pertinent but admitted fact, it was observed, the prosecution requires to prove, by adducing evidence, accused’s association with the AB force and his participation with its activities in Chittagong as narrated in the charges framed for holding him responsible and guilty. Merely on the admitted fact of his position in the ICS the accused cannot be held liable for the atrocities allegedly committed at the AB camp at Dalim Hotel. Burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt by evidence and circumstances.’

On behalf of the appellant it was argued as


a)                               there is no direct evidence to implicate the convict appellant in the alleged abduction, confinement, torture and murder of Jasim and the other five unknown persons - the tribunal erroneously convicted the appellant for the charge only on the basis of some so- called circumstantial evidence. 

b)                               there is not a single witness on record to show that the convict appellant abducted, confined and tortured or killed Jasim.

c)                               the tribunal failed to consider the evidence which are all hearsay in nature.

d)                               that the charge is defective, inasmuch as, the date, the time and the place of occurrence has not been mentioned.

e)                               P.W.17 made inconsistent statement to the investigating officer who also made hearsay evidence.

f)                               P.W.17 did not file any complaint against the appellant-had he been involved, she would have filed the case against him.

g)                               material exhibit VI series did not incriminate the appellant in any way.

h)                               non-examination of Jasim’s brother cast doubt about the complicity of the appellant.

i)                               P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 16 made inconsistent statements regarding the manner of torture, killing and identification of Jasim at Dalim Hotel.

j)                               the tribunal erred in law in relying upon the evidence of P.W.19 in failing to notice that this witness said nothing in support of the charge.

k)                               there is no legal evidence to show the presence of the appellant at the crime scene.

l)                               finally, the tribunal erred in law in convicting the appellant without considering the defence evidence. Findings

Let us now consider whether there is any direct involvement of the accused in support of the charge. It is to be noted that the incidents of offences of the nature have been perpetrated about 42 years before the trial has taken place. It is one of the challenging task to collect legal evidence because of the changes during this intervening period, but also the fact that most of the witnesses are not alive. More so, in the intervening period, the political scenario had been changed after the killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The regime which came to power rehabilitated the anti-liberation forces and the persons who perpetrated these crimes against humanity were also accommodated in the government. Those perpetrators perpetrated crimes against humanity in a similar manner. They not only screen out the legal evidence but also distorted the history of the liberation struggle lest their abhorrent roles are known by the young generation. This has done by the defeated forces of the First World War and the Nazis in the second world wars, even thereafter, in Cambodia, Khemr Rouge regime of polpot, Tatsis in Rwanda, Serbian forces in Bosnia etc. The court can take judicial notice of this common practice from the history. In our country the admitted position is that some right wing political parties with direct cooperation and participation of the perpetrators remained in power from 1975 and destroyed, destructed, and defaced almost all legal evidence in a planned manner.

It is, therefore, sufficient to convict an accused person charged with offences of crimes against humanity if it is proved that the offender has some knowledge of, and sympathy for the inhumane policy so as to give him a mental element more culpable than that of the ordinary offender. This principle has followed in other regions of the globe where similar crimes have been committed. In some cases it has been held that if an offender merely awares that his crime is also being committed by others in a widespread basis, he may be held guilty of the offence. The expression ‘awareness’ must be taken to include some approval of policy, as for example, in Dusko Tadic case, the accused was a local thug who was allowed to enter occasionally to torture prisoners. He was implicated in the ethnic cleansing of his village, by calling out Muslim civilians from houses, forcibly separating the women and children and elderly from the older men, and dispatching them to different camps. The tribunal held that this behabiour amounted to a crime against humanity compendiously described as ‘persecution’, namely, repeated inhuman acts of harassment, torment,

 It was held by this Court in earlier cases that due to lapse of time, evidence collection and use of old evidence in atrocity cases is also complicated by the instability of post-atrocity environments, which results in much evidence being lost or inadequately preserved. The investigation officers and the prosecutors have to trawl through decades-old records, track and verify witnesses. In this connection Alphons M.M. Orie, a Judge of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yogoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague, in an article on ‘Adjudicating Core International Crimes cases in which Old Evidence is Introduced’ under the heading “The limits

of the Legal Approach to Old Evidence” observed ‘It might therefore be that the legal approach does not produce a fully satisfactory answer to the challenges encountered when dealing with ‘Old Evidence’ about events that have long since passed’.

One of the challenges associated with the delayed criminal justice against the perpetrators of crimes against humanity is the location, treatment, assessment of old evidence and apathy of the succeeding governments in power. It is an admitted fact that the members of Shanti Committee and the Razakars, Al-Badars, Al-Shams, who actively opposed the liberation struggle and involved in the commission of inhuman acts like killing, rape, torture, arsoning, and other related activities were allowed to come out of hiding and resumed normal life under the regimes after August, 1975. Some revived Jamat- e-Islami and others joined other political parties in power after the horrific incidents of killing in 1975. Since then a culture of impunity prevailed and the perpetrators of crimes against humanity were rehabilitated in political activities and allowed them to freely participating in political life and even went on

to hold high posts like Members of Parliament and Ministers. One of those beneficiaries is the appellant Mir Kashem Ali. He amassed a big business conglomerate as will be discussed later on by use of his political clout with persons in power.

The perpetrators like him not only destroyed the legal evidence, they also successfully distorted the history of liberation struggle, erased their names from the list of collaborators, persecutors, perpetrators of barbarous crimes. Naturally, it is a difficult task to collect legal evidence in support of the charges. This case should be considered in the context of the changed circumstances. Even then there are some strong uncontroverted evidence, which prove the appellant’s culpability and his horrific role played in 1971. Besides the documentary evidence, the prosecution led ocular evidence in support of the charge. The witnesses are local and some of them knew the accused from his boyhood and one of them is his classmate. These evidence proved that Mr. Kashem Ali raised Al-Badar forces at Chittagong and he became the commander of the said force. He was the philosopher, architect, organiser of the forces, the planner of the killings and perpetrated the killings as per his plan.

In this regard we would like to reiterate the findings arrived at by this court in Muhammad Kamaruzzaman in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2013. In that case, we had elaborately discussed the doctrine of superior responsibility or command responsibility and also the theory of civil superior responsibility within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Act, 1973. This court observed, this responsibility can be taken into account as an aggravating act to assess the degree of accused’s participation to the accomplishment of criminal acts about the role of Razakars and Al-Badar forces responsibility. It noticed the provisions of the East Pakistan Razakars Ordinance, 1971, the Ansars Act, 1948 and held that the Razakars were regulated by the Razakars Ordinance after repeal of the Ansars Act. Though a Director was holding the office as chief executive officer, the force was governed by Ordinance No.X of 1971 and

subsequently this force was placed under the command of army officers by an amendment made in the Army Act by Central Government’s notification dated 7th November, 1971. The Razakars or the commander of the Razakars had no command responsibility but in fact, the accused Mohammad Kamaruzzaman performed the responsibility as a superior commander by abusing the power as he was in the good book of the military junta. He was allowed to act according to his whims and volition.

In view of the above findings, the plea taken by the defence that Razakar Motiur Rahman had control over Dalim Hotel falls through. Rather it is on evidence the accused Mir Quashem Ali was the President of Islaami Chatra Sangha, Chittagong chapter. He raised Al-Badar forces at Chittagong and set up its head quarter at Dalim Hotel. There are strong conclusive evidence on record that this torture centre was under the control of the accused. There is nothing on record to assume that Motiur Rahman or the Pakistani army controlled this torture centre. Although under the prevailing law, the army was at the helm of the affairs as there was no law and order prevailing in the country, these paramilitary forces openly perpetrated torture, killing, rape and other horrific acts