It was clear from prosecution witnesses that killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, 1975. was not pre-planned, argued the defence counsel in the District and Sessions Judge's Court yesterday. reports UNB.

Khan Saifur Rahman, the counsel for Col Syed Far.ooq Rahman also quoted the prosecution witnesses to substantiate his argument.

He submitted that those who came out of the cantonment on the fateful night did not kill Bangabandhu. "Neither they nor the army-police guards at the residence committed the murder. A third force was be-

hind the killing."

The oath of allegiance was written at the radio station, the Indemnity Ordinance was promulgated on August 20 and all other related activities amply manifest that there was no preparation for the incident.

Quoting witnesses the lawyer said the army personnel who came out of the cantonment returned XU ammunition on return to the cantonment. I,

He salct*. if the murder was intended only at bringing about a change in the government, then there was no justification of killing other members of the family of Bangabandhu.

If the August 15 incident

would have been a follow up of a conspiracy, argued the counsel, then the accused would have taken all legal preparations. "So. the August 15 incident was a sudden Incident, it was not an Incident expected."

The counsel argued that the broadcast of announcements on August 15 morning over radio were legalised by the Indemnity Ordinance and had been incorporated in the Constitution. So, the aocused could not be made guilty based on those announcements.

Moreover, the Indemnity Ordinance promulgated on August 20. was a document signed by Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed. Government was formed under his leadership.

The counsel argued: "Mushtaque shouldered the responsibility. signed the Indemnity Ordinance and took over state power. So. he knew better whom ne had engaged to execute his plan and whom he wanted to protect by the Indemnity Ordinance. Only those who obtained indemnity certificate may be brought to the trial. Syed Farooq and other accused in the case have not taken any indemnity certificate."

Khan Saifur contended that there was no evidence that Syed Farooq obtained benefits or facilities after the August 15 changeover.

Khandaker Mushtaque. the counsel argued, was at the helm

of everything as "self confessed hero’ and was the most beneficiary of the incident. His client was not a beneficiary, he added

As Mushtaque was the sole planner and executor' of everything. Col Farooq was not be hind the 'conspiracy' of the August 15 incident.

Khan Saifur said if there was any conspiracy, motive and intention to kill Bangabandhu. then it was natural to disconnect the telephone lines in that house. But all the telephone lines in Bangabandhu's residence were tn order.

"Bangabandhu took his pipe, match box and tobacco case with him before stepping out of his bed room. He even asked the armymen "What do you want? Where you want to take me? This amply indicates that Bangabandhu was convinced that he was being taken to somewhere and that he would not be killed." contended the defence counsel.

He pointed out the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses about timing of killing. The witnesses said the killing took place between 5 to 6 am. but the chargesheet said it was between 4:30 to 5:30 am.

Refuting the prosecution submission. Khan Saifur said "Guards in Bangabandhu’s residence had ammunition with

. their arms."

He contended that it was not ■ proved whether Shamsul Huq, . an army sepoy, was killed by bullets or by artillery shell.

The counsel questioned, if the post-mortem of Shamsul Huq could be done, why then autopsy of Col Jamil and Lt Sheikh Jamal was not done.

Khan Saifur Rahman will resume his argument at 9:30 am today.