Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



International Crimes (Tribunal) Rules of Procedure, 2010
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Rules 44 and 51(2)

The tribunal has given discretionary power under rule 44 to admit any evidence oral or documentary, print or electronic including books, reports and photographs published in news papers, periodical and magazines, films and tape recording and other materials as may be tendered before it and it may exclude any evidence which does not inspire any confidence in it. In exercise of discretionary power, the tribunal has discarded affidavits as having no reliability. Rule 51(2) provides that the defence shall prove the documents and materials to be produced by it in accordance with law. In order to prove any documentary evidence by the defence, it is required to prove the same in accordance with section 9(5) of the Act which provides that a list of witnesses for the defence, if any along with documents or copies thereof, which the defence intends to rely upon, shall be furnished to the tribunal at the time of the commencement of the trial. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295 ....View Full Judgment

Rule 53(ii)

There is no scope under the rules of evidence to infer contradiction of the statement of a witness with those stated to the investigation officer. The Rules provide that the cross-examination of a witness shall be strictly confined to the subject matter of the statement made in chief. The party, however, is at liberty to cross examine such witness on his credibility and to take contradiction of the evidence given by him. The credibility of the witness can be inferred and taken from the evidence in chief and not otherwise. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295 ....View Full Judgment

Rule 53 (ii)

The credibility of the witness can be inferred and taken from the evidence in Chief and not otherwise–
As regards police contradiction, Appellate Division held that in view of sub-rule (ii) of rule 53 of the Rules, there is no scope to infer any contradiction between the evidence of the witness and his earlier statement made before the police. Or in the alternative, a contradiction between the statements of a witness and his evidence cannot be taken or perceived in any manner. There is no scope under the rules of evidence to infer contradiction of the statement of a witness with those stated to the investigation officer. The Rules provide that the cross-examination of a witness shall be strictly confined to the subject matter of the statement made in chief. The party, however, is at liberty to cross examine such witness on his credibility and to take contradiction of the evidence given by him. That is, the credibility of the witness can be inferred and taken from the evidence in Chief and not otherwise. (Para-163); .....Salauddin Quader Chowdhury =VS= The Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Dhaka, (Criminal), 2017 (1)- [2 LM (AD) 511] ....View Full Judgment

Rule 56

The tribunal shall give due weight to the primary and secondary evidence and direct and circumstantial evidence of any fact since the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case demand to consider the time and place of the occurrence. The tribunal gave due weight to the direct evidence and discarded the affidavits. The direct evidence prevails over inadmissible evidence. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295. ....View Full Judgment