Date : 14/05/2024
Brief update:
The subject case was taken up before the Trial at Bar for the evidence of witness No.2111 (76th witness) who was present before the court.
The 9th and 23rd accused were not brought before the court as per the medical advice. However, their lawyers represented them and the trial proceeded without those accused being present.
Some corrections were done in the proceedings of the 09th May 2024.
Witness No.2111 (76th witness), is presently serving as the Senior Assistant Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission and at the time of the incident he has served as a Magistrate.
The witness was cross examined by the lawyer who appears for the 11th accused. The witness was questioned on the recording of the confession of the 11th accused. He was questioned whether the statement was taken under Section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) or Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the witness stated that the statement was recorded under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Also the witness described that, the suspect (11th accused) was given 3 opportunities on three separate days to consider giving the statement and the suspect gave the statement on the 25th of June 2020. It was also mentioned that the witness has explained to the suspect the consequences of giving such a statement.
The detention order dated 16th March 2020 was marked as the 11 Y(1) and the last paragraph of the confession was marked as the 11Y(2).
The Counsel who appears for the 1st ,10th ,22nd ,24th & 25th accused asked permission to cross-examine the witness as the 11th accused’s confession contains some portions about 1st,10th and 25th accused. The lawyer contended that under Section 16 of the PTA, a statement made by one of the accused can be used against the other accused.
The lawyers who appeared for the Attorney General’s Department pointed out that a statement made by a person can be used against another accused under section 16(3) of the PTA only if that statement is made under section 16(1) of the PTA. Also they stated that under section 16(1) of the PTA a statement can be made to a police officer above the rank of an Assistant Superintendent. The State Counsels further pointed out that under Section 8 of the PTA a statement can be recorded by a Magistrate.
After considering all the arguments the honourable three-judge bench ordered that the statement cannot be used against other accused as it was not a statement made under section 16(1) of the PTA.
The cross examination of the witness 2111 was concluded and the re – examination will be in the next date.
Witness 2111 was advised to present on the next date .
Further trial was fixed for 15th of May 2024.
Next dates: The case will be taken up on 15th May 2024 at 1.00pm for further trial.
