& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Important dates in the trial of Bangabandhu murder case
leader of our Liberation War, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was assassinated along with most of his family members in a military putsch on August 15.1975.
In the 27 years that followed the bloodbath, legal proceedings against the accused were initiated only in 1996 due to the inhibition Imposed by the infamous indemnity ordinance, enacted by the post-Mujib regime of Khondoker MustaqueAhmed.
Appended below is the clironology of the legal dates pertaining to the trial proceedings concerning the Bangabandhu murder case.
' October 2,1996: AFM Mohitul Islam, a personal assistant-at-residence of the slain leader, filed an FIR with the Dhanmondi Police Station for trial ofthe killers.
• October 3.1996: Crime Investigation Department (CID) takes up the case for investigation.
• November 12, 1996: The Jatiya Sangsad repeals the Indemnity Ordinance.
’ January 15,1997: Charge sheet submitted before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate'sCourtImplicating20people in thekilling.
• January20,1997:Arrestedaccusedproducedbeforethecourt.
■ January 28, 1997: High Court dismisses a quash petition challenging legality of the repeal of the Indemnity Ordinance.
• February 3,1997: Notice published in newspapers asking abscondbig accused to produce themselves before thecourt.
February20,1997: Arrested accused produced before the CMM Court.
■ March 1,1997: The CMM Court transferred trial proceedings to Dhaka District and Sessions Judge's Court.
’ March 3,1.997: Special courtroom set up near Dhaka Central Jail with Dhaka District arid Sessions Judge Kazi Golam Rasul as the trial judge, Advocate Serajul Haq named special public prosecutor for the case.
"March 12,1997: Six charge-sheeted accused produced before the Ses.r sionJudgeCourt.
•Marcli 20, 1997: State appointed defense counsels for 14 fugitives at public expense.
" April 6,1997: Hearing began for preparing charges against the accused.
• April 7,1997: Charges submitted against 20 accused.
" April 21, 1997: High Court stayed a petition by one of the accused, Zobaida Rashid, challenging legality of charges.
• April 29,1997: High Court rejected petition of Zobaida Rashid. The case, however, remained stayed until hearing on a petition regarding the proper venue fortrial.
" April 30.1997: High Court rejected petition about the court's competence.
" May 4,1997: High Court stayed proceedings for one month following petition byZobaida Rashid.
" July 6,1997: The trial began as plaintiffs rendered depositions. One of theaccused. Zobaida Rashid, gotacquitted upon HighCourt'sorder.
’ March 2,1998: the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging legality of the annulment of the Indemnity Ordinance.
"July9,1998: Bangladesh signed extradition treaty with.Thailand.
•July 21,1998:61 prosecution witnesses' statementrecorded.
August 12,1998:.Cross-examinationof prosecution witnesses began. •October 13, 1998: Hearing completed after 149 working days' of proceedings.
• November 8, 1998: Verdict pronounced and capital punishment, awarded to 15 accused, 4 acquitted.
• November 11,1998: Death reference sent to High Court.
■ January 16,2000, A High Court division bench (comprising Justice Kazi Ebadul Huq and Mokbul Huq) refused to hear the case urging panics to go to appropriate court.
• February 6, A High Court Division Bench (comprising Justice MM Ruliul Amin And Abdul Matin) refused to hear the urging panics to wait for appropriate time.
• February 6, A High Court Division Bench (comprising Justice Ridiul Amin and SK Sinha) refused to take the case urging panics to go to appro-priatebcnch.
• February 7, Another High Court Division Bench (comprising Justice Nurul IslamandJusticeMomotazuddin) refused to take thecase.
• March 30. Chief Justice constituted a Bench (comprising JusticeAmirul Kdlm i Iic.uv.IIiuia- :i nI in-.:। A!>liil Aziz) to hear thedeathreference
• April 10, JusticcAmirul Kabir Chowdhury expressedattibarrassmetii to hear thecase.
’ April 24, Chief Justice assigned lus&eWM' Ruhul Aminand MA Matin to hear the case.
Z* April 24, Judges expressed embarrassment In wrltlngto hear thecase, prompting the Chief Justice to Constitute a new death reference bench comprised of Justice Ruhul Amin and ABM Khairui Huq.
• April 24, 2000: Petition filed against trial court verdict by the accused. The cause list incorporated issue of confirmation of the verdict by a High Court Division (comprised of Justice Ruhul Amin and Justice ABM Klialrul Haq).
■ June 28,2000: Hearing on the petition and death reference began.
• November28.2000: Hearing completed.
• December 14,2000: Division bench of the High Court gave split verdict: One judge confirmed death sentences to 10 accused and acquitted five others while the other judge upheld trial court verdict that awarded death sentences 15accused.
• January 15,2001: Third bench constituted with Justice Fazlul Karim to disposeofsplitverdict.
• February 12,2001: Hearing on split verdict began.
•April 14,2001: Hearingcompleted.
• April 30,2001: Third Judge pronounced verdict and upheld death sentence to 12 accused.
Following this, four convicts filed leave to appeal against the High Court verdict.
• August 16,2001, Justice Kazi Golam Rabbani expressed embarrassment to hearing the review petition. Tire leave to appeal hearing lay pending with die Appellate Division due to shortage of judges.
Prepared byZayadulAhsan, Senior Reporter, The Daily Star.
But now for various reasons, it is taking more time titan other cases normally do. The principle of equality, as embodied in the constitution, dictates that this case should take no longer time than the other cases do. If wo look abroad we can see that trial for the assassination of the Heads of State or of the government always attract general public concern, interest, curiosity andattention.
Tlie trials of the killers of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, John F Kennedy, Anwar Sadat are some ofthe examples.
Special significance
The Initiation of this case conveys an undistorted message to the effect dial no heinous offence can go unpunished even by way of passage of time, and that I believe, Is the most important significance of this case. It must be remembered that there is no period of limitation in criminal law and hence tin offondcrcan be brought to boqkatanytime - even after elapse of decades as happened In the case ofIkeman. The message that nobody can get away by committing an offence, shall make possible future adventurers to think tiirice before embarking on a similar mission.
Shamsuddln Manik Chowdhury, Bor-at-Law, Is a former Deputy Attorney Gonoml and Advocate, Supremo Gouri