21 August accused punished based on hearsay evidence, says HC
Confessional statements taken from the accused were extracted through torture, says the court
The accused in the 21 August grenade attack cases were punished based on weak and hearsay evidence as the witnesses failed to clarify who had thrown the grenades during the attack, the High Court (HC) said today (1 December) during its observation of the verdict.
"Besides, no investigation officer mentioned who had supplied the grenades in their charge sheets," the HC said after scrapping the lower court verdict in the two cases filed over the 21 August grenade attack and acquiting all convicts, including BNP's Acting Chairperson Tarique Rahman and former state minister for home affairs Lutfozzaman Babar.
After the verdict announcement, Mohammad Shishir Manir said, "The trial conducted was illegal because it was not based on the law.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
"The court said there was no collaboration between any of the witnesses. The conviction was based solely on hearsay evidence based on testimonies," he added.
"For this reason, the court rejected the death reference appeals and acquitted all the accused, including Tarique Rahman and Lutfozzaman Babar, declaring them innocent," Shishir further said.
When asked whether the court had made any observations, he said the court observed that there was no evidence of anyone having seen or witnessed the incident firsthand.
"The court also remarked confessional statements taken from the accused were extracted through torture," he added.
Shishir also said Mufti Hannan had given two confessional statements.
"We had argued there was no precedent for convicting anyone based solely on a second confession in the 400-year history of the Indian subcontinent. Today, the court stated that the second confession he [Hannan] made was later retracted, and as such, there was no legal basis for this confession," he added.
