HC verdict: A citizen's views

THE verdict in the case of the gruesome killing of four national leaders -- Syed Nazrul Islam, Tajuddin Ahmed, M. Mansur Ali and A.H.M. Qamruzzaman -- inside Dhaka Central Jail on the night of November 3, 1975 was delivered on August 28. Let me remind the nation in an effort to stress the importance of the case that while it was the responsibility of the state to protect their lives, it not only failed to do so, it also failed to punish their killers.




The then DIG (Prison), Abdul Awal, filed a case with the Lalbagh Police Station a day after the killing against four persons, including Risaldar Moslemuddin -- the lone accused whose death sentence has been upheld by the HC.



No investigation was ordered and no further action was taken in this case. Not surprisingly, then inamous Indemnity Ordinance was drafted and put in place quickly and surreptitiously to indemnify all those who were involved in the tragic killings of August 15 and November 3 of 1975.



It was only in October 1996, when the Awami League government headed by Sheikh Hasina removed all legal obstacles to try the perpetrators of this heinous crime, that investigation into the killings and prosecution case could begin.



It was not an easy task collecting and putting together relevant evidence and building a case against those once powerful people who masterminded these inhuman killings and those who physically carried them out, given that much of the evidence might have been destroyed during the 21 years of rule by governments not very well disposed to judicial trial of this case, and some of the evidence may be well nigh impossible to produce now.



But does it mean that our judicial system is such that those who committed the offence would go unpunished?



The trial court had earlier acquitted five accused and sentenced to death three, while giving life imprisonment to twelve, in its verdict on October 20, 2004. The HC has set aside the death sentence of two out of three, and life imprisonment for four out of twelve, and freed them.



The lone accused whose death sentence has been upheld happens to be a fugitive. The HC did not pass any order on eight sentenced earlier to life imprisonment, as they did not file any appeal.



The HC, in acquitting six persons convicted earlier, has blamed "poor" and "faulty" investigation for damaging the merit of the case. With due deference to the honourable judges, should we not be pragmatic when we ask for evidence to indict and prove who were behind the killing? Are we naïve enough to expect that someone will come forward now and say that he or she saw so-and-so enter the jail and gun down the four leaders 33 years ago?



Maybe someone who witnessed this tragedy is no more in this world. Maybe someone who saw this tragedy happen is not brave enough to stand as a witness. Maybe someone who committed the crime is not morally strong enough to admit his guilt and say who were his accomplices. But does this mean that the people of this country, including the honourable members of the judiciary, do not know who called the shots on that fateful night? Do we not know who were at the helm of affairs of this country when this tragedy took place, and without whose orders the dastardly and abominable act could not have taken place?



There is something known as circumstantial evidence in law. When direct and documentary evidence is hard to get, the prosecution, or even the defence, can rely on circumstantial evidence. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, the evidence is circumstantial. The honourable judge can also look for circumstantial evidence in his or her quest for delivering justice.



Is it not common knowledge that those who were involved in the tragic killings of August 15 and November 3 were given safe passage out of the country, and later many of them were given government jobs in the diplomatic service? Do not those who stand accused in this Jail Murder Case fall in this category? Was it beyond the purview of the trial court and the higher judiciary to take cognisance of this fact while delivering their verdicts?



The fact remains that the four national leaders who had guided the liberation war of this country to victory in 1971 had been brutally killed inside the Dhaka Central Jail, and that those who ordered them to be killed and those who snuffed the life out of them have not been punished, whereas the law of the land demands that they be punished.



It is the business of the judiciary to punish the guilty, and ensure that justice has been done to all. Which is precisely why the judiciary is treated with such honour and respect, like no other state organ is. It pains us to see that justice in many cases has not been delivered on the plea of poor prosecution case.



On more than one occasion has justice been delayed far too long, thus denying justice, because either a particular judge felt embarrassed to hear a particular case or because there were not enough judges to hear and dispose of a case.



If there is even an iota of truth in the charges levelled against an accused, and if the honourable judge feels at any time during the trial that the accused committed the crime, it would be injustice to let the accused enjoy the imprimatur of an innocent man.



In cases like the Jail Killing Case, instead of blaming the poor and faulty investigation for damaging the merit of the case, it would have been worthwhile on the part of the higher judiciary to order a retrial of the case without acquitting the accused.



We want justice to be delivered, no matter who is the plaintiff or the accused. It is injustice if an accused who has committed a crime is not punished and is set free, whatever be the reason for acquittal, as it is equally injustice to punish an innocent person or confine him or her in jail without a fair trial.