পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (প্রথম খণ্ড).pdf/২৯৮

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা হয়েছে, কিন্তু বৈধকরণ করা হয়নি।
২৭৩

বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ প্রথম খণ্ড

written order to fire was handed over to the Police officials from a private car from Burdwan House. It was accompanied by a letter expressing the students' mortification at the limited scope of the enquiry and then apprehension that it would prove impossible-or had been made impossible for me to gather the true facts of the occurrence.

6. The principal statement of the communicants who objected to the Police firing was received from one Dewan Harun Md. Maniruddin, a student of the Jagannath College, Dacca. He was the only person who claimed to have personally witnessed the Police firing. He submitted one statement on the 21" March, 1952, in which he gave the names of 5 witnesses but followed it up two days later by another statement, dated the 23rd of March, 1952, shorter but substantially on the same lines-in which he added the names of 17 more witnesses.

7. Sixteen statements were received from persons who complained that they had been the victims of lawlessness on the part of the student body on the 21st February, 1952. Some of them were bus conductors, drivers and rickshawalas, who had apparently gathered the impression that one of the functions of the enquiry was to assess damages and award compensation to persons whose vehicles had been damaged. The principal statement in justification of the firing was that submitted by the Government of East Bengal to which a list of 21 persons was attached as witnesses in a position to give evidence material to the enquiry.

8. I considered it desirable to secure the statements of all the persons whose names had been given in the various statements submitted and accordingly had notices issued or requiring requesting them to attend the enquiry for that purpose. The addresses proved insufficient to reach 8 of the persons whose names had been given and so no notice could be served upon them. Seven of those who actually did receive notice did not put in an appearance. They replied either declining to give evidence or explaining that they were not in a position to give any evidence material to the scope of the enquiry.

9. The Government notification of the 13th March, allowed me at my discretion to permit Advocates to assist me in the conduct of the enquiry. Mr. Hamoodur Rahman appeared with my permission on behalf of certain of the Government officers concerned in the enquiry. No other Advocate applied for permission to appear, nor did any other party ask to be represented by an Advocate. Though the Government of East Bengal had submitted a statement it did not consider itself a party to the enquiry and was not legally represented. At my request, however, Mr. Syed Abdul Ghani appeared as appointed by Government to assist me in the enquiry.

10. The hearing in camera should have commenced on the 7th April, 1952, but on that date it proved impossible to examine any witness as certain preliminary arrangements were not completed in time. The examination of witnesses actually commenced on the 8th of April.

11. Witnesses whose statements were in support of the police claim that the firing was justified and was not in excess were examined on the 8th, 9th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th of April, i.e., for 7 days. Witnesses whose names figured in the statements