After a long debate between the prosecution and the defence teams during closing arguments in the case against Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, the tribunal accepted a single witness to prove a crime.
In the verdict pronounced on Tuesday, the tribunal was affirmative to this point and remarked that just a single witness proved the murder of Satish Chandra Palit since it was an eye witness and awarded the war criminal 20 years jail-time.
The tribunal mentioned: “It is a settled principle that during war time, a solitary witness is sufficient to prove any crimes against humanity or genocide.”
In charge seven, 28th prosecution witness Paritosh Kumar Palit narrated how his father had been killed by the Pakistani army with the help of the accused in Raozan of Chittagong on April 14, 1971.
During the arguments, the defence suggested that the tribunal must not rely upon the evidence of a single witness in order to prove a charge. They said a single witness must be corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence.
The prosecution differed with the view entirely.
Prosecutor Tureen Afroz gave reference to several such cases in some trials abroad where single witness were accepted given that the testimony was relevant and credible. Moreover, she said corroboration of evidence was not a customary rule of international law and should not be ordinarily required by the international tribunals.
In the verdict, the tribunal said upon scrutiny of the evidence of Paritosh, “it is evident that he as an eye-witness of the occurrence has narrated how his father was killed by the Pakistani army with the help of the accused. He has categorically stated that on the date of occurrence, accused Salauddin Quader Chowdhury accompanied by members of the Pakistani army raided their house and at the presence of the accused, Pakistani army men gunned down his father which he saw from a nearby bush of their house.”
Victim Satish was a learned man who altercated with the Pakistani army in English, “so it is predictable that the father of the witness was targeted for the reason that he was a pro-liberation progressive minded Hindu civilian.”
The tribunal said: “We do not find the defence who could impeach credibility of this witness who is an eye witness of the occurrence. His version as to the commission of crime and physical complicity of the accused has not been shaken.”
Prosecutor Tureen told the Dhaka Tribune that when the tribunal accepts a single witness without corroboration, it would be a landmark for future. “We need not to be arguing on this anymore in other cases.”
She added that the victim’s son told the tribunal what happened in front of his eyes. “We are happy with the tribunal’s decision.”
However, since the defence counsels are not happy with the whole verdict, they have the same view on this point too.
Counsel Ahsanul Huq told the Dhaka Tribune: “How can we believe that the son of Satish is telling the truth? If another witness told us about the same incident then we could rely upon the deposition of the victim’s family.”
