Testimony of Dr. Md. Rajibul Islam

My name is Dr. M.D. Rajibul Islam. My father’s name is Late Abdul Majid, and my mother’s name is Mrs. Jinat Rehana. I am 48 years old. I am a doctor by profession. Currently, I am working as an Assistant Professor and the Head of the Forensic Medicine department at Rangpur Medical College. On July 16, 2024, during the anti-discrimination student movement, Abu Sayed, a student of Begum Rokeya University, was killed in police firing in Rangpur. I performed his post-mortem.

After completing the post-mortem, I tried to submit the report as per the rules, but when I first went to submit it, the police did not accept it. In my report, I opined that Abu Sayed’s death was homicidal and mentioned that he died from multiple pellet injuries from a shotgun. Before I prepared the post-mortem report, a high-ranking police official pressured me to focus on the head injury. Among the senior police officials were DC Crime Maruf and a few others. After preparing the initial report, I prepared the report four more times. The police asked me to show ‘head injury due to neurogenic shock’. However, every time I prepared the report, I mentioned Abu Sayed’s death as a homicidal murder.

Meanwhile, a judicial inquiry committee was scheduled to visit Rangpur. Due to this, in a hurry, on July 30, 2024, the police put immense pressure on me in the room of the Vice Principal of Rangpur Medical College, in the presence of senior police officer DC Crime Maruf, City SB- SP Siddique, and Secretary leader Dr. Chandan Sir. They told me to report Abu Sayed’s death as a ‘head injury due to neurogenic shock’. Then the police officials also threatened me. They told me, “An intelligence report has been filed against you. Will you prepare the report according to our instructions or not?” Among them, Vice Principal Sir, Professor Mahfuzur Rahman, said, “Rajib, the flavor isn’t quite right.” I replied, “The whole world watched live as Abu Sayed was shot. If I now submit a report showing a head injury, not only the doctors in our country but the entire global medical community will be disgraced.”

When they couldn’t subdue me even after applying a lot of pressure, they tried to tempt me. The police offered, “You prepare the report as we say and go to Singapore or Thailand for 2-3 weeks. The police will bear all the expenses.” I said I don’t even have a passport. Then they said, “Go to Cox’s Bazar for a week.” I did not agree to that either. Then Chandan Sir told me, “Rajib, you see, they are now doing business with Abu Sayed’s dead body. The leader is concerned about this matter. Prepare the report as the police say.” I did not agree to that either. I wrote the fifth report in front of the Vice Principal and senior police officials, in my own way. I mentioned the cause of death as homicidal, but I could not mention the weapon. Instead, I added a note at the end of the report to consider the circumstantial evidence.

It is noteworthy that on that day, DGFI, NSI, and senior officials of the Rangpur division were waiting in front of the Vice Principal Sir’s chamber. AC Arif and many other unnamed senior police officials were also present there.. On July 30, 2024, the senior police officer collected a copy of the report with a memo number. Every time I wrote and went to submit the report, the police officials, after seeing it, would say it was not to their liking and tear it up. I have preserved every copy in my record diary. After the fall of the previous government, an investigation committee from the International Crimes Tribunal visited my office. The committee was led by Additional SP Mr. Alamgir. They verified that I had written the report five times. They seized my report volume books no. 9 and 10, leaving them in my custody and instructing me to bring the two volume books with me when summoned by the tribunal.

These are the post-mortem reports, prepared and located in volume no. 9, pages 20, 21, 22, and volume 10, pages 1 and 2. The original copy of which has been submitted in ICT-BD Case No. 2 of 2025 at ICT-1. The original copy of the post-mortem is with the investigating officer of that case. These are the certified photocopies of those five post-mortem reports, which were marked as exhibits- 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively.

Before the fall of the previous fascist government, defying all oppression, persecution, and threats, I tried to reveal the true cause of Abu Sayed’s death. I find solace in the thought that despite being made to write the report repeatedly, I was ultimately able to present all the  copies of the post-mortem reports to the tribunal.

I want exemplary punishment for all those who murdered Abu Sayed, those who ordered the killing, and those who overzealously opened fire. I also demand the same for those who put me under mental stress and pressurized me to change the report. My plea to the tribunal is to ensure my safety.

8th Sept

The very first post-mortem report that I prepared correctly described the cause of death. That post-mortem report is written on page 20 of the Post-Mortem Diary Volume no. 9. The report recorded on page 20 of volume 9, when compared with the photocopy of the post-mortem report preserved on page 350 of the volume named as the seizure list and documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution in the formal charge, is found to be correct.

During the post-mortem of the deceased Abu Sayed, I found the following injuries:

• • Multiple penetrated wounds with enlargement of pellets in the different parts of the body (anterior part of the head, face, and chest wall with abdomen, with both lateral aspects, with inner aspect of both thighs).
  • One hematoma was situated along the left clavicular line, 2 inches below the left clavicle, measuring (2 x 2) inches.
  • One hematoma was situated on the right side of the chest wall, just lateral to the midline, measuring (2 x 2.5) inches.
  • One lacerated wound situated at the right hypochondrium region, 2 inches above the umbilicus, measuring (0.5 x 0.25) inches.
  • One diffuse hematoma was situated in the right inguinal region, which extended to the middle part of the thigh (right) at the inner aspect, measuring (3.5 x 3) inches.
  • One penetrated wound was found in the left parieto-occipital region.
  • At each injury of the penetrated wound, muscle was lacerated with dark clotted blood seen.
    
    

On detailed dissection:

• • Huge dark clotted blood was found at the extra-chest cavity with intra-chest cavity (pleural space) and in the thoracic cavity due to tearing and laceration of the muscle vessels.
  • Dark clotted blood was found at the abdominal cavity due to tearing and laceration of the mesenteric vessels of the abdomen.
  • Tearing and laceration of the right femoral vessels.
  • Extra-vasation was found with ante-mortem clots in each penetrated wound.

My Final Opinion: From the above findings, I am of the opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of firearm injuries (shotgun), which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.

 During the previous government’s rule, I gave an interview to Prothom Alo, stating that Sayed’s chest was riddled with police bullets. For this, I was threatened over the telephone from Dhaka, saying, “How can you, a government employee, speak against the government?”

After the fall of the government, I gave interviews to the media, especially to Al Jazeera and Jamuna TV, stating that I was repeatedly pressured to alter the report.

Prosecution: Your Lordship, I had a request. It would be great if this part [the last two paras of the evidence]  could be added before the report reading. The sequence would be maintained.

Objection by the Defense Counsel, Aminul Gani: That wouldn’t be right because the deposition should be in the same sequence as the witness stated it. Changing the sequence like this won’t do.

(The objection was sustained).

I am praying for the return of the post-mortem diary, volume nos. 9 and 10 into my custody with the tribunal’s permission.

Tribunal’s Objection: The post-mortem report wasn’t admissible before. It became admissible when Section 509 of the CRPC was amended to include 509A. That’s why there is no issue in taking it back now.

Prosecutor Mizanul Islam: That is correct, your Lordship. But the Appellate Division also gave a ruling in 2010—I don’t recall the case name—and it is also mentioned in Rule 55 that when an evidence is admitted as an exhibit, all of its contents become admissible.

Tribunal’s Response: The tribunal will decide which evidence to admit and which to reject, as stated in Rule 46. Besides, this is secondary evidence. You surely know the difference between primary and secondary evidence. For this reason, it cannot be admitted. You may take it back.

Prosecution: Yes, Your Lordship, you can do anything under Rule 46, I agree. However, this post-mortem report has also been filed in another case. We have brought the original copy from that case to submit here. That is why we cannot take it back without the tribunal’s permission.

Tribunal: But if the evidence is not admitted then why is it necessary to take the permission?

Prosecution: Alright, then you just write in the order that you are giving permission to keep it in the witness’s custody please.

Tribunal: Okay. Fine, we agree on that. We will grant permission in the order, no problem.

The investigating officer had interrogated me. This is my deposition.

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Sujat Mia (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 1-Prof. Hasibur Rahman, 11-Hafizur Rahman, 12-Sarwar Hossain, 14 and 30):

I am working as an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at Mirpur Medical College and Hospital, and I held the same position when the report was submitted. The body arrived at the morgue at 8:40 PM at night, and I began the autopsy at 9:15 PM. I have seen and read the inquest report and the challan which were prepared by the magistrate. Before starting the autopsy, I was pressured and instructed to focus on the head injury, but I started the autopsy in my own way. I prepared the report according to the injuries I found on the deceased’s body during the autopsy. I was not in a position to file any written complaint with the higher authorities about the pressure exerted on me. Between the Vice Principal and Dr. Chandan, the Vice Principal was senior in post and position. I prepared the first autopsy report on July 16, 2024, and the final report on July 30, 2024. Report number four, which is on page 358, does not have my signature in its main part, that is, in the volume. However, I did sign to attest the seized papers when the seizure list was being prepared. There are linguistic differences between the opinions in reports number one, two, and five, and the opinions in reports number three and four.

It is not true that I had a political conflict with Dr. Mohammad Sarwar Hossain, also known as Chandan, or for this reason, I implicated him and gave false testimony in the honorable tribunal.

It is not true that Dr. Chandan pressured me to change the autopsy report or that I changed the autopsy report to serve my own interests.

It is not true that I gave false testimony to socially and politically humiliate Dr. Sarwar Hossain, also known as Chandan.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy):

There is a dedicated space for the civil surgeon in the form of five attested post-mortem examinations. The civil surgeon’s signature is not in the 5 mentioned spaces. Before the post-mortem examination began, I or any other doctor did not check the five vitals of the deceased Abu Sayed. It’s not my job either. I had received Abu Sayed’s death declaration certificate. I don’t remember which doctor’s sign was on that certificate. I don’t remember if I submitted the said death declaration certificate to anyone. I don’t remember what time the death was announced. The doctor who declared the death will be able to tell. In the first four reports, (Exhibits- 2, 3, 4, and 5) have a cross mark. My signature is there as an attester in the said 4 post-mortem reports.

Tribunal (Chairman): What is a “cross mark”? Doesn’t it just mean it’s just crossed out?

Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman: No, Your Lordship. The two are different things. A cross mark on a post-mortem report means something else. I do not wish to elaborate on it now, but I will be able to explain during the arguments. Because you can’t ask me questions at this phase. Ask during the arguments, and then I will explain.

The purpose of a post-mortem is to determine the actual cause of death of the deceased person. Before starting the post-mortem procedure, I did not call the investigating officer to be present at the morgue. Apart from the post-mortem examination of the deceased Abu Sayed, I came to know about an incident of this case by watching a live video. I became aware of another incident by watching a live video. “I want exemplary punishment for all those who murdered Abu Sayed, those who ordered the killing, and those who overzealously opened fire”, this is not mentioned in the post-mortem report, and it is not a matter for the post-mortem.

It is not true that the above sentences were mentioned in the deposition in the tribunal after getting emotional from watching a video, or that by this, I did not carry out the post-mortem examination impartially.

In the subject of forensic medicine, there is a separate chapter on ballistics. I have training in various shotgun gauges, such as 12, 16, and 20. I have taken diploma course training from Rangpur Medical College. I have done training for a Diploma in Forensic Medicine but have not yet taken the exam. It is not true that tissue is not torn by shotgun bullets. When the police did not accept the first report, I did not try to send it to the authorities through the post office or any other means. At that time, the head of Rangpur Medical College was Professor Dr. Sarwat Jahan. He was also the head administratively.

“The parieto-occipital region is a critical part of the brain where the parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes of the skull bones fuse.” This is correct.

Defense Counsel: What is Blood Clot?

Tribunal’s Objection: Why are you asking these questions? Is this a cross-examination or an examination?

I was able to determine the time of the deceased Abu Sayed’s blood clot, but I did not mention it because there was no column in the prescribed form. One penetrated wound was found in the left parieto-occipital region. Here, the length and width of the mentioned injury are stated, but the depth is not. In my deposition, I mentioned the depth of the wound caused by the shotgun pellets. Injury number five is 3.5 x 3 inches in length and width, but there is no mention of its depth.

The fifth-exhibited report, (Exhibit- 6) with the memo number, was provided to the police, DGFI, and NSI on July 30, 2024. Among the senior police officials were DC (Crime) Maruf, SP Siddique of CT SB, and outside the room were many other senior officers, including from DGFI and NSI. I have submitted the registry-based evidence of providing the copy of this post-mortem to the police, DGFI, and NSI to the case investigating officer (IO). The degree of fatality of the 7 injuries is mentioned in the on-dissection.

It is not true that the degree of fatality is not mentioned anywhere in the entire report, including the on-dissection.

It is not true that I gave false testimony on this matter under oath.

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

(He first adopted the Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy) 

Between August 5, 2024, and March 13, 2025, I did not file any case, complaint, or GD (General Diary) about the police influencing the post-mortem report. Regarding the matter of the pressure to alter the Post Mortem Report, the mobile number of the phone through which the pressure was applied, the name of the person who pressured me, or the date on which the threat was made, I did not file any case or GD mentioning these things. I have not revealed the telephone number from which I was threatened to this tribunal either.

It is not true that I mentioned a numberless threat in my deposition to prove myself important.

It is also not true that my preparation of five post-mortem reports was to prove myself as important.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Sheikh Mustabhi (In favour of Present Accused no. 13-Rafiul Hasan Rasel):

[He first adopted the Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy); and  by the Defense Counsel Aminul Gani (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam)

The police himself told me to mention the sentence “head injury due to neurogenic shock” in the report. In the autopsy report, I mentioned the weapon.

Cross-Examination has been declined by the Defense Counsel Md. Shahidul Islam (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 15-Amin Hossain, 25, 26, 27 and 28)

[He first adopted the Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy); and  by the Defense Counsel Aminul Gani (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam)

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Barrister Israt Jahan Oni (In favour of the Absconding Accused no. 2-Md. Monir, 3-7)

[He first adopted the Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy); and  by the Defense Counsel Aminul Gani (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam)

On July 17, 2024, I tried to submit the first autopsy report during office hours. I can’t remember the specific time. The investigating officer came to our office and collected the autopsy report. I don’t remember the name of the investigating officer who took the report from me. We did not count the number of pellets in the body of the deceased Abu Sayed, but the report mentioned multiple pellets. From 4:00 PM to 8:30 PM, I was constantly pressured over the phone. Various police officers called me and created pressure, but I don’t remember their names. I didn’t write down the numbers from which the calls came. Between July 18, 2024, and July 29, 2024, I wrote report numbers two, three, and four. I can’t say the exact date specifically. In reports one, two, and three, I mentioned the date as July 16, 2024, along with my signature.

It is not true that I knowingly signed and mentioned the date as July 16, 2024, even though the report was not prepared on that date.

CTSB’s Siddique said, “Tell me whether you will give the report according to their wishes or not.” DC Maruf said, “An intelligence report has been filed against you.” These things were said to me between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM on July 30, 2024. I don’t remember the specific time.

It is not true that senior officials, including DC Crime Maruf, were not present at that place at that time.

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Mamun-Ur-Rashid (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 16-Pomel Barua, 17-22, 24):

[He first adopted the Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy); and  by the Defense Counsel Aminul Gani (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam)