& 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

Try August 15 case under army law

Defence counsel says, compares Aug 15 carnage with Zia killing

Staff Correspondent
The case regarding the August 15 incidents has to be tried under the army act by court martial as the killings of Bangabandhu and Ziaur Rahman were similar in nature and resulted from mutiny in the army, a defence counsel told the Supreme Court yesterday.
Advocate Khan Saifur Rahman, counsel for convicts Syed Farooqur Rahman and Muhiuddin Ahmed in Bangabandhu murder case, made the statement while placing arguments before the apex court during the 14th day s hearing on the appeals.
He said the Zia murder case was tried by court martial under the Army Act 1952 and 12 people were sentenced to death. Similarly, the case regarding the killings of Bangabandhu and his family members on August 15, 1975, has to be tried by court martial, Saifur said.
It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial of the case by the ordinary criminal court such as the Sessions Judge, Dhaka, was not maintainable in law for want of jurisdiction thereby vitiating the trial. Thus the conviction and sentence awarded on the appellants are liable to be set aside,' he said.
I he lawyer said the series of events, activities, briefings, exercises and happenings in Dhaka cantonment preceding the fateful incident of August 15, 1975, clearly constituted mutiny and did not indicate any case of simple murder.
The counsel said the trial of only murder offence in a normal criminal court was not appropriate as murder and mutiny are inseparable factors in the case.
Saifur said since three army men -- Col Jami), Sheikh Jamal and Sepoy Shamsu - - were killed in the August 15 incidents, it is a case of mutiny and should be tried by court martial.
He further said the then chief justice, and the chiefs of the army, navy and air force attended the oath-taking ceremony of the cabinet on August 16, 1975, at Bangabhaban following the incidents.
The chief justice administered oath to the cabinet members, and all these events proved that the August 15 incidents were results of a mutiny.
When the court asked Saifur whether they attended the oath-taking ceremony spontaneously, the counsel said he did not know it.
He argued that since two judges of a High Court bench delivered split verdicts in the case and put signatures on them separately, the judgements should be treated as theiropinions.
Saifur said the delay in filing the first information report (FIR) was aimed at tutoring the witnesses in this case.
Awami League assumed power on June 26.1996. but the FIR was lodged on October 2, 1996 without giving any explanation for the delay, he said.
The five-member bench of Appellate Division headed by Justice Md Tafazzul Islam adjourned the hearing till 9:30am Sunday.