Testimony of Md. Ashraful Islam

Prosecution: Tell us your name.

Witness: Md. Ashraful Islam.

Prosecution: Tell us your designation.

Witness: SI (Armed).

Prosecution: Tell us your father’s name.

Witness: XX.

Prosecution: Tell us your mother’s name.

Witness: XX .

I am approximately 47 years, Address: XXX District: Nilphamari.

Prosecution: Where are you currently employed?

Witness: Currently, I am working as an SI (Armed) in Rangpur Metropolitan Police.

Prosecution: Can you tell the date of the case? What happened on that date?

Witness: Yes, 16/7/24.

On the last 16/7/2024, I was working at the Rangpur Metropolitan Police Lines. On that day, at 8 o’clock in the morning, under my leadership with a force of 14 people based on a CC, I arrived by government vehicle at the Park’s intersection in front of Rangpur Begum Rokeya University at approximately 8:40 in the morning. I reported to the officer in charge of my duty, OC (Investigation) of Haragach Police Station, Mr. Mohammad Nur Alam, and the Armed Police Inspector, Mr. Khorshed Alam sir.

Prosecution: What happened after you reported?

Witness: At approximately 13:00 hours (1 PM), a procession came from Lalbagh. The procession was a procession of the general students.

Prosecution: What happened after that general students’ procession arrived?

Witness: Immediately, our senior authorities, AC Kotwali Zone Mr. Mohammad Arifuzzaman, ADC DB Mr. Mohammad Shah Nur Alam Patwari, and OC of Tajhat Police Station Mr. Mohammad Rabiul Islam, made all the present police members stand in a line in front of gate number one of Begum Rokeya University.

[The line ‘The police members who were issued shotguns went outside the gate, firing’ was originally stated by the Witness. On question by the Prosecution, the Witness stated the line which is here written immediately before, implicating Md Amir Hossain and Constable Sujan Chandra Roy, substituting the earlier statement. The Defence raised objection to such questioning as leading and requested that the line first stated should stay for the ends of justice, and the new line may stay thereafter with his objection. The Tribunal resolved the issue and added both the lines in the description of the examination, as it is now.]

Prosecution: What happened after that?

Witness: When the anti-discrimination general students who came from Lalbagh tried to enter through gate number one of the university, AC Arifuzzaman sir talked to the students and obstructed them.

Prosecution: What happened after the obstruction?

Witness: At one point, an argument started with the students. After that, AC Arifuzzaman sir ordered all the forces present to blow whistles, lathi charge, and throw sound grenades. The general students dispersed as a result of the lathi charge and throwing of sound grenades, and the general students became more agitated when some members of the university administration, Chhatra League, and Juba League in civilian clothes took up positions inside gate number one of the University. After that, AC Arifuzzaman sir ordered the police members who were issued gas guns to fire gas. AC Arifuzzaman himself also fired a gas gun.

Prosecutor: Did AC Arifuzzaman give the order alone, or was someone else with him?

Witness: DB’s Mr. Shah Nur Alam Patwari, Tajhat Police Station’s OC Mr. Rabiul Islam, and the university’s police camp in-charge Bibhuti Bhushan Roy were present with him.

Prosecutor: What happened after the students dispersed?

Witness: When the gas gun was fired, the students dispersed. Subsequently, AC Arifuzzaman sir, along with all the police members present, went inside gate number 1 of the University. After some time, the students and the public pushed open gate number one and tried to enter. Immediately after, AC Arifuzzaman sir, OC of Tajhat Thana Rabiul Islam, and ADC DB Shah Nur Alam Patwari called the police members to the front and ordered them to fire shotguns. On the orders of AC Arifuzzaman sir and OC Tajhat Rabiul Islam sir, the police members who were issued shotguns went outside the gate, firing. On the orders of AC Arifuzzaman sir and OC Tajhat Rabiul Islam sir ,ASI (Armed) Md Amir Hossain and Constable Sujan Chandra Roy started firing shotguns and moved towards the outside of the gate. A student who was standing with his arms outstretched was shot.

The student who was shot fell down injured, and a few people from the surrounding area picked him up and took him away.

Prosecutor: Where did they take him?

Witness: They took him for treatment.

Witness: AC Arifuzzaman sir again fired gasgun on the students and the public.

At approximately 14.35, when the situation became normal, he took the present police members from gate number 1 of the University to Modern Mor (Intersection/Square). At approximately 16.00, we came to know from AC Arifuzzaman sir that the shot student, Abu Sayeed, had died at Rangpur Medical College Hospital.

At approximately 8:30pm, when the government vehicle arrived to take us to the close, we left for the police lines with all the members.

Prosecutor: Did the investigating officer interrogate you?

Witness: Yes, he interrogated me.

Prosecutor: On what date did the investigating officer interrogate you?

Witness: The investigating officer interrogated me on 17/03/2024.

This is my testimony

Cross-examination by Adv. Azizur Rahman Dulu in favour of present accused no. 8 Amir Hossain and accused no. 9 Sujan Chandra.

Defence: On 16/07/2024, when you went on duty under a CC, what weapon was issued to you, and how many bullets were issued?

Witness: A 9 mm pistol was issued in my name, and 8/10 bullets were issued.

Defence: Do you remember your CC number?

Witness: I don’t remember, but it’s in the office.

Defence: Did you return the weapon and bullets issued under the CC on 16/07/2024?

Witness: Yes, my lord. On 16/17/2024, I returned the weapon and bullets issued under the CC, and I returned all of them.

Defence: You gave false testimony regarding the use of bullets.

Witness: This is not true. (It is not true that I gave false testimony regarding the use of bullets).

Defence: Did the IO ask you anything about the CC and matters related to the CC?

Witness: No. (On 17/07/2025, the investigating officer did not ask me anything about the CC.)

Defence: Was your deposition written in front of you?

Witness: Yes. (On 17/03/2025, the investigating officer recorded my statement in front of me.)

The Defence tried to show the statement of the witness made before the IO, and said you have mentioned in your statement that blowing whistle…but he was stopped by prosecution and tribunal.

Opposed by the Prosecution again on the ground that Defence was drawing attention to a statement made before the IO for the purpose of cross-examining the witness, which is barred by law. The Defence argued that it was not for the purpose of contradicting the witness, but for admission of a statement made before the IO. The Tribunal accepted the Prosecution’s contention that any statement made by the accused before IO can not be drawn attention to for the purpose of contradiction in cross-examination and cited the Quader Molla case and Rule 53 (ii). The Tribunal also did not accept the argument by the Defence counsel that it was for admission since the end purpose is contradicting him. It stated that he is trying to do indirectly what he is barred by law and it is a well settled principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Defence was asked to move on to the next question.

Defence: You yourself were involved in the lathi charge and firing.

Witness: No, my lord. (It is not true that I was involved in the lathi charge and firing.)

Defence: You are saying that the police members who were issued shotguns, fired them. How many police members were issued shotguns?

Witness: I do not remember the total number of police members who were issued shotguns.

Defence: From whom in the armoury did you receive the issued weapon? There must have been a specific person.

Witness: I don’t remember. I received the issued weapon and bullets from the police members in charge of the armoury, but I cannot state their names and designations.

Defence: After finishing your duty, you submitted the issued weapon and bullets to some person. Do you not remember that person’s name and details either?

Witness: No. I do not remember the name and designation of the person to whom I submitted the weapon and bullets after finishing duty.

Defence: After duty on that day, which senior police officer prepared and submitted the report on the expenditure of bullets, that is, regarding the use of weapons and bullets? Do you remember his name?

Witness: After duty on that day, I cannot say which senior police officer prepared and submitted the report regarding the use of weapons and bullets.

Defence: You mentioned that you, leading a force of 14, arrived at the park’s intersection in front of Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, by government vehicle at approximately 8:40 AM. Can you state the names and designations of those 14 members?

Witness: No. I do not remember the names of all the 14 police members who were performing duty under my leadership.

The Tribunal Judge said that this is too difficult question to answer, terming the question as some sort of memory test of the witness.

Defence: Can you state which of the 14 force members were issued which weapons and bullets?

Witness: I cannot say which of the 14 force members were issued which weapons and bullets.

Defence: You later came to know that Abu Sayeed is the victim in this case. Did you see him being beaten with a lathi?

Witness: I did not see Abu Sayeed being beaten with a lathi.

Defence: You are saying you were taken to intersection named ‘Modern’ from gate number one of BRU (Begum Rokeya University). How far was it?

Witness: I cannot say how far away from gate number one of Begum Rokeya University we were taken.

Defence: You were on police duty. Were you all wearing the same uniform and helmet? Is that correct?

Witness: While on duty, we were all wearing police uniforms and helmets. This is true.

Defence: Do you remember the total number of police personnel on duty inside the Begum Rokeya University campus?

Witness: I do not remember the total number of police personnel who were on duty inside the Begum Rokeya University campus.

Defence: Is the total number of weapons and police officers on duty recorded in writing in the police lines from which the weapons were taken and deposited?

Witness: It is not in my memory whether the total number of weapons and police is recorded in the police lines from where the weapons are taken and deposited.

Defence: Were all police members commanded by a senior police officer?

Witness: They were, this is true.

Defence: You have given false testimony by mentioning the names of two police members as taught by others to save yourself.

Witness: It is not true that I have given false testimony by mentioning the names of two police members as taught by others to save myself.

Defence: Have you seen any video footage related to that case?

Witness: I have not seen any video footage related to the incident of this case.

Defence: You have given unreliable testimony in your deposition.

Witness: It is not true that I have given unreliable testimony in my deposition.

Cross-examination by Adv. Md. Aminul Ghani Titto in favour of present accused no. 10 Md. Shariful Islam.

Adopted the cross-examination by Adv. Azizur Rahman Dulu in favour of present accused no. 8 Amir Hossain and accused no. 9 Sujan Chandra.

Defence: Did you perform your duty from 17/7/24 to 05/8/2024 in order to suppress the movement in demand of quota reform? If so, in which dates have you performed the duties?

Witness: Yes, I performed my duty. I performed the duties on some times.

[Defence: Did you inform your superior officer that it is inappropriate to torture the unarmed students in the movement?]

The Tribunal disallowed the question since the witness lacked the authority to ask such question to his superior. The Defence brought forward the issue of superior command responsibility. The Tribunal said that it was inapplicable here since the junior officers do not have that authority to say to their superior officer about the inappropriateness of an action.

Defence: You have directly participated in the killing of Abu Saeed and against the Anti-Quota Movement.

Witness: It is not true that I have directly participated in the killing of Abu Saeed and against the Anti-Quota Movement.

The Counsels for the accused nos. 1, 11, 12, 14, 30, 23, 29, 8, 10 adopted the cross-examination above.

State Defense Lawyer (SDL) Israt Jahan Ony representing Absconding Accused no. 2-Md. Monir, 3-7:

Defense: At that time, who was in the police’s chain of command at gate number one?
Witness: At that time AC Arifuzzaman was in charge of the command at gate number one.

Defense: Did you hear with your own ears that AC Arifuzzaman gave the order to throw sound grenades, tear gas shells, and to lathi charge?
Witness: Yes.

Defense: Did you throw sound grenades?
Witness: I did not. No sound grenade was issued in my name.

Defense: Do you know in how many people’s names sound grenades were issued?
Witness: No.

Defense: Did you see AC Arifuzzaman fire a gas gun with your own eyes?
Witness: Yes, I saw AC Arifuzzaman fire a gas gun with my own eyes.

Defense: What was your distance from Arifuzzaman, when he fired the gas gun.?
Witness: I do not remember what my distance was from him when he  fired the gas gun.

Defense: Were you harmed as a result of all this firing- sound grenades, gas guns?
Witness: As a result of all this firing- sound grenades, gas guns I was not harmed.

Defense suggestion: Gas guns and sound grenades were fired in a measured and tolerable amount to pacify the protestors, and no one was harmed.
Witness: This is not true.

Witness: I cannot say for sure what time it was when AC Arifuzzaman took us to gate number one.

Defense: Who called out to the front first?
Witness: AC Arif (Arifuzzaman) and OC Rabiul Islam called us to the front. Both of them had told us to fire the shotgun. I saw students carrying Abu Sayeed for medical treatment. I am unable to answer what my distance was from the student who was shot. AC Arif and the OC were close to the student who was shot. I was inside the gate when the student was shot. The gate was open at that time.

Defense: What was the distance from the gate to the place where the student was shot?
Witness: I am unable to say this.

Defense: There was no one in the place between the gate and the place of the shooting, but there were people behind. When the police were firing tear gas shells and sound grenades, the protestors were throwing stones from behind
Witness: It is not true that when the police were firing tear gas shells and sound grenades, the protestors were throwing stones from behind.

Defense: That thrown stone hit Abu Sayeed in the back of the head.
Witness: This is not true.

Defense: When AC Arifuzzaman fired the gas gun again, did you see it with your own eyes?
Witness: I did not see it with my own eyes. At that time, I was inside gate number one.

Defense: After the change of power, in order to save yourself, you have colluded with the current administration and given false testimony against a senior officer with dishonest intentions.
Witness: This is not true.

Defense Counsel Md Shahidul Islam representing accused numbers 15, 25, 26, 27, and 28 adopted cross-examinations 8, 9, and 10.