Testimony of Rafiqul Islam 

My name is SI (Unarmed) Rafiqul Islam. I am 45 years old. My father’s name is the lxxx, and my mother’s name is the late xxx. My address is xxx Dinajpur. Currently, I am posted as SI (Unarmed) at Sundarganj Police Station, Gaibandha.

On March 13, 2025, I was on duty as the in-charge of the court evidence room (Malkhana) of the Rangpur Metropolitan Police. On that day, at around 3:15 PM, on the order of the learned court, in the evidence room located on the ground floor of the District and Sessions Judge Court, Rangpur building, the investigating officer of this case, Mr. Mohammad Ruhul Amin (PPM), Additional Superintendent of Police, seized the evidence kept in the evidence room, whose MR number is 5029/24, GR number is 102/24, wrapped in white cloth and sealed, according to the seizure list, in my presence.

The seizure list was prepared in front of me, and I signed it. This is that seizure list (pages 104-105) and my signature given on it was marked as Exhibit-24 and 24A, respectively. At the time of the seizure, my colleague, ASI MST Mehrunnesa, was present and signed. I recognize her signature. This is that signature, which was marked as Exhibit-24B. The seized evidence was later handed over to my custody. I signed the custody bond (jimmanama) and took back the evidence and stored it in the evidence room according to the rules. This is that custody bond (page 106), and my signature given on it was marked as Exhibit-25 and 25A, respectively.

The investigating officer has interrogated me. This is my Deposition.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Md. Aminul Gani Titu (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam)

The seized evidence has not been presented before this tribunal. The seized evidence was sealed in a white cloth. I have not seen the seized evidence with my own eyes. The investigating officer did not put any mark on the evidence. I have read the seizure list. I cannot say whether any mark was made on the evidence items during the three days from July 25, 2022, to July 28, 2022. The investigating officer reviewed the evidence room register in my presence.

Defense: In your presence, the Investigating Officer reviewed the register of Malkhana (storeroom of seized property). (Referring to the seizure list) Was this seizure list prepared in your presence?
Witness: Yes.

Defense: Was the information in the last part of the first page of the seizure list mentioned in the malkhana register?
Witness: Yes, it was.

Defense: Has a copy of the seizure list from the Tajhat Thana case been preserved with the Malkhana register?
Witness: Yes.

The defense then referred to item no. 107 of the seizure list. The Tribunal observed that this was a non-exhibited document and ruled that questions relating to a non-exhibit document would not be allowed at this stage.

Defense: Your Lordship, I have a bona fide intention.

Tribunal: Whatever it may be, we have not yet exhibited this document. Allowing this would open a new chapter. For now, questions may only be asked from these two documents.

The Chairman of the Tribunal further observed that the simple issue is that the document has not yet been exhibited, and therefore the defense has no right to question regarding it. He further remarked that there are thousands of documents in the storeroom — is the witness supposed to know every one of them? And asked him to drop this question. The question was accordingly dropped.

Defense: Do you know how much time it took to prepare the seizure list and the custody bond?
Witness: No, I don’t know.

Defense: Look at your custody bond and see if the time is mentioned.
Witness: No, the time is not mentioned.

Defense: Can’t you even say by making a guess?

Tribunal: This question will not be allowed.

Defense: Despite being in charge of the storeroom, this seizure list and custody bond were not prepared in your presence.
Witness: That is not true.

Defense: How many police personnel work under you in the storeroom?
Witness: Two police members work under me.

Defense: What is the distance from Tajhat Police Station to the GRO office?

(The prosecution raised an objection, stating that this question would not be allowed and said that Rashedul Islam is a formal witness.)

Defense: Are the GRO office of Tajhat Police Station and the storeroom in the same building?
Witness: They are in the same compound but in separate buildings.

Defense: You don’t have a signature on the first page of the seizure list, correct?
Witness: No, I don’t.

Defense: In the seizure list, some witnesses’ signatures do not have dates beside them.
Witness: In the seizure list, the signatures of two of us witnesses do not have dates.

Defense: (Referring to item no. 105 of the seizure list and reading) This memo no. 229/Metro Court, dated 13 March 2025, was issued to the in-charge of the storeroom.
Witness: Yes.

Defense: Was the Investigating Officer of the GR 102/24 (Taj) case present at the time of seizure by the Investigating Officer of this case?
Witness: No.

Defense: You and ASI Mosammat Mehrunnesa signed the seizure list from the same place.
Witness: That is not true.

Cross-examination by Azizur Rahman Dulu on behalf of Accused Nos. 8 and 9.

Defense: The items seized in GR 102/24 (Taj) case have been shown as seized in this case without being released from the former.
Witness: I don’t know.

Defense: Did you or anyone else sign as a witness on the white cloth in which the seized items were wrapped and sealed?Witness: I did not.

Defense: Was any concerned magistrate or any court staff from the Metropolitan Court present at the time of seizure?

Witness: The magistrate was not present, but the GRO was present.

Defense: In fact, you were not present at the time of seizing these disputed seized items.

(The Tribunal directed that the word “disputed” be dropped, and it was accordingly dropped.)

The state defense lawyer, Israth Jahan Oni, adopted the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused Nos. 8, 9, and 10.

The defense counsel appearing on behalf of Accused Nos. 16 to 22 and 24 also adopted the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused Nos. 8, 9, and 10.

Additionally, Israt Jahan Oni, on behalf of learned counsel Shahidul (who was absent), adopted the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Accused Nos. 8, 9, and 10. The accused represented by Shahidul are Accused Nos. 15, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29.