Re-examination of witness 1: Amir Hossain

Further testimony of Amir Hossain

Prosecutor (Adv. Gazi MH Tamim): You have already testified before this Tribunal. What else have you come to say now?

Witness: After providing my previous testimony, I came to know about another video from Facebook. In that video, I heard the accused, Chanchal Chandra Sarker, stating that he shot me. He further stated that Tariqul was with him. Tariqul had also fired shots. After watching that video, I contacted the Investigating Officer (IO) of the Tribunal over the phone. He asked me to come to the Tribunal again and instructed me to bring the video on a pen drive. I have brought the video on a pen drive to the Tribunal today. This is the pen drive containing that video. (Material Exhibit V)

The video is exhibited in the Tribunal today. The video shows:
The accused, Chanchal Chandra Sarker, introduces himself and says, “On July 19, 2024, during the Anti-Discrimination Movement, the DMP Commissioner Sir ordered us to open fire with Chinese rifles. We took weapons from the Rampura Police Station as we saw fit I shot the boy hanging from the cornice, and Tariqul, who was with me, also shot him.”

(Re-examination concluded.)

[The State Defence wanted to cross-examine after Arshadul Haque Babu. However, the Tribunal denied his request and told him to cross-examine first.]

State Defence Advocate Amir Hossain representing the absconding accused Habibur Rahman, Md. Rashidul Islam, Md. Mashiur Rahman, and Tariqul Islam Bhuiyan.

State Defence (Adv. Amir Hossain): From whom or from which organization did you receive the video?

Witness: The pen drive containing the video that I submitted to the Tribunal today was taken from Pinaki Bhattacharya’s Facebook page.

State Defence: On what date did you watch or download the video?

Witness: I do not remember the exact date I watched the video or the date I downloaded it.

State Defence: From which phone number did you call the IO to inform him about this video?

Witness: I called the IO from my own phone number and informed him about the video.

State Defence (Suggestion): The video submitted to the Tribunal today is generated by AI.
Witness: That is not true.

State Defence (Suggestion): The voice of Chanchal Chandra Sarker in the video is not actually his.
Witness: That is not true.

State Defence (Suggestion): You are giving false testimony having been tutored by others.
Witness: That is not true.

At this point, Defence lawyer Arshadul Haque Babu appears before the Tribunal and asks for time for conducting the cross-examination.)

Defence (Adv. Arshadul Haque Babu): If the Tribunal can grant four weeks for additional evidence on the day of judgment, then I can also ask for four weeks of time.

Tribunal (Addressing the Prosecutor): Now answer this.

Prosecutor: The purpose of the two is not the same. In certain cases, the Defence might get more time than the Prosecution. But this matter is different.

Defence: Since you were able to take four weeks to bring Facebook and viral evidence, I also have some such evidence, for which I am requesting four weeks of time. Also, my senior is now abroad.

Prosecutor: Not four weeks, one week time may be given for this.

Tribunal: Neither one week nor four weeks’ time. Let’s set the date on 23 April.

State Defence (Adv. Amir Hossain): The IO must also be cross-examined in light of this witness.

Tribunal: If you want to cross-examine him, please submit a petition.

23 April

Cross Examination on behalf of the present accused Chanchal Chandra Sarkar

Defence: Can you state on which date you first watched the ( Exhibit-V) video?
PW: I do not remember the exact date when I watched the video (Exhibit-V).

Defence: Which Facebook ID do you use?
PW: I use a Facebook ID under the name Amir Hossain.

Defence: How did you first come across the said video?
PW: I watched the video on the Facebook account of Pinaki Bhattacharya through an auto-generated link.

Defence:After watching the video, did you like or follow it?
PW: I did not like or follow the video link.

Defence: Did you save the video on your mobile phone?
PW: Yes, I downloaded and saved the video on my mobile phone.

Defence: Have you produced the mobile phone, in which the video was downloaded, before this Hon’ble Tribunal?
PW: No, I have not produced the mobile phone before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

Defence: From where did you collect the pen drive containing the video?
PW: I collected the pen drive containing the video from Banchharampur, Brahmanbaria.

Defence: Do you know the storage capacity (in GB) of the pen drive?
PW: I do not remember the storage capacity of the pen drive.

Defence: How much did you pay to purchase the pen drive?
PW: I do not remember how much I paid for the pen drive.

Defence: Did you receive any receipt at the time of purchase?
PW: No, I did not receive any receipt at the time of purchase.

Defence: Can you state the name of the shop from where you took the video into the pen drive?
PW: I do not remember the name of the shop.

Defence: How did you transfer the video into the pen drive?
PW: I transferred the downloaded video from a computer to the pen drive.

Defence: To whom did the computer belong, which was used to transfer the video?
PW: The computer belonged to the owner of the shop from where I took the video into the pen drive.

Defence: After watching the video, on which date did you contact the Investigating Officer?
PW: I do not remember the date on which I contacted the Investigating Officer.

Defence: How did you contact the Investigating Officer?
PW: I contacted the I.O. using my phone number.

Defence: What is your phone number?
PW: My phone number is [redacted]

Defence: Were you served with any summons from the Tribunal to give evidence?
PW: No, I was not served with any summons from the Tribunal.

Defence: What is the name of the Investigating Officer in this case?
PW: The name of the Investigating Officer is Mr. Faruk.

(He later says Abdur Rauf. At this stage, the witness identifies the Investigating Officer before the Tribunal.)

Defence: Do you remember the phone number of the Investigating Officer?
PW: I do not remember the phone number of the Investigating Officer.

Defence: Did you save the Investigating Officer’s phone number in your mobile phone?
PW: No, his number is not saved in my phone.

Defence: The submitted video (Exhibit-V ) was generated by AI.
PW: It is not true that the submitted video (Exhibit-V ) was generated by AI.

Defence: You did not download the video; rather, someone else downloaded it and provided it to you in a pen drive.
PW: It is not true that I did not download the video; rather, someone else downloaded it and provided it to me in a pen drive.

Defence: You have given false testimony regarding(Exhibit-V) as being instructed.
PW: It is not true that I have given false testimony regarding(Exhibit-V) as being instructed.

The Defence asked that the Tribunal that the ongoing cross-examination be kept pending and that the authenticity of Exhibit V be examined. In response, the Prosecution submitted that the onus lies upon the Defence to prove whether the material is AI-generated or not. The Defence Counsel then referred to Rule 46(a) and Rule 19(1)(f) of the International Crimes Tribunal Rules.

Thereafter, the Tribunal stated that an order would be passed for examining the video of Exhibit V, and a report is to be submitted on 10 May 2026.

The next date of trial has been fixed for 14 May 2026.