The prosecution in the war crimes case against ATM Azharul Islam yesterday claimed that the Jamaat-e-Islami leader had abetted and facilitated the killing of his teachers of Rangpur Carmichael College during the 1971 Liberation War.
On the third day’s argument, the prosecution placed arguments on charge number three and part of four. Later the International Crimes Tribunal 1 adjourned the session until Sunday.
When prosecutor Tureen Afroz took the chance to submit arguments on old evidence principle, the tribunal asked her to place it during the legal submission.
Prosecutor Tapos K Baul then pleaded before the tribunal: “If we submit this earlier, it will be easy for us to argue on next charges.” Then the tribunal said: “It is your case. You may proceed as you want.”
Tureen placed her submission saying that the prosecution could accommodate hearsay evidence.
Tapos said the accused, an assistant secretary general of Jamaat, had planned to abduct and kill the teachers as he knew when the teachers would go to the college to collect their salaries.
According to the charge, Azhar accompanied by the Pakistani occupation forces had entered the campus of Carmichael College on April 30, 1971 and abducted Prof Chityaranjan Roy, Prof Sunil Baran Chakrabarty, Prof Ram Krishna Adhikari, Prof Kalachand Roy and his wife Manjusree Roy. They were later taken to nearby Damdam Bridge and killed.
A total of seven prosecution witnesses including two eye witnesses testified on the charge.
Meanwhile, prosecutor Abul Kalam Azad yesterday submitted formal charges against fugitive war crimes suspect Syed Md Hassan Ali to the tribunal’s registrar office.
The investigation agency on June 29 presented the final report against Hassan, infamously known as “Razakar Daroga” for his war time role in Tarail area of Kishoreganj, to the prosecution.
Six charges have been brought against the alleged razakar commander of Tarail.
In another case, defence counsel Tajul Islam pleaded to the tribunal to meet his client, Obaidul Huq alias Abu Taher, who was sent to jail recently. The tribunal said since the case was under investigation, the counsel had nothing to do with his client.
Tajul answered that he had been engaged to deal with the case. “So I need to talk with him about his prima facie case. The tribunal then allowed his plea mentioning that they could meet tomorrow.