Testimony of SI Tarikul Islam

I am SI (Unarmed) MD Tarikul Islam, age 35. My father’s name is the late Emdadul Haque Sarkar, and my mother’s name is the late XXX. My address is XXX, in the Gaibandha district. By profession, I am a Sub-Inspector (SI) in the police force, currently serving at Bhasantek Police Station, Mirpur Division.

On July 16, 2024, I was assigned to “Unnatural Death” (UD) duty in the Rangpur Metropolitan Kotwali Police Station area and at the hospital. At that time, anti-quota and anti-discrimination protests were ongoing in Rangpur. At around 4:30 PM, I learned through a wireless message from the Rangpur Metropolitan Tajhat Police Station that there was a body at Rangpur Medical College Hospital and an inquest report needed to be prepared. Accompanied by my fellow constable, no- 724, Liton Debnath, I went to Rangpur Medical College Hospital. There, I learned that a student had been killed in police firing in front of Begum Rokeya University. His name was Abu Sayeed. At that time, there was a lot of tension inside the medical college, and many police officers were on duty.

Around 7:00 PM, the Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Rangpur Metropolitan Police Kotwali Zone, Arifuzzaman Arif, who was in charge, came to Rangpur Medical College Hospital and asked me, “Have you seen the body?” In reply, I said, “No, sir. I have not seen the body.” He said, “Go and see the body.” After seeing the body, I came back and told Sir Arifuzzaman that there were numerous shotgun wounds on the body, an injury mark on the back of the head, and blood was coming out, which was smeared on the stretcher. Arifuzzaman sir said, “The details of the shotgun pellet injuries cannot be written in the inquest report.” When I did not agree with him, he started verbally abusing me and said, “Bastard, won’t you listen to me? If you don’t, I will file a case against you as a Jamaat-Shibir activist.” At that time, the situation at Rangpur Medical College Hospital was deteriorating. AC Arifuzzaman sir told me, “I am under pressure. You have to do this.” I disagreed with him again and said, “Preparing the inquest report this way could cause problems for me later.” Hearing this, he became even angrier, insulted my deceased parents, and said, “I will have you killed by Awami League people.” At this, I became scared.

At around 10:30 PM, AC Arifuzzaman sir brought an Executive Magistrate with him. They again pressured me to prepare the inquest report. Having no other choice, in the presence of Executive Magistrate Mr. Ahmed Sadat of Rangpur Metropolitan, I was compelled to prepare the inquest report. I omitted the mention of shotgun pellet injuries and instead wrote that Abu Sayeed’s body had numerous small injury marks and an injury on the head.

This is the certified photocopy of the inquest report I prepared, which bears my signature. [The inquest report was shown to the witness]. This is the certified photocopy of that inquest report, and it has my signature on it, which was marked as Exhibit 9 and 9A. Later, the inquest report was countersigned by the Executive Magistrate, Mr. Ahmed Sadat, and to determine the exact cause of death, I sent Abu Sayed’s body to the morgue of Rangpur Medical College Hospital for a post-mortem examination. I was forced to prepare this flawed inquest report; I did not do it of my own free will. The investigating officer interrogated me. This is my statement.

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

I had experience in preparing inquest reports even before I prepared this one. At the time of the incident, I was inside the Kotwali Police Station. I do not recall the General Diary (GD) entry number under which I left the station at this moment. After preparing the inquest report, I was present at the hospital until the post-mortem was completed. The post-mortem was conducted until approximately 11:55 PM. Upon returning to the Kotwali Police Station, I did not make any GD entry. The case file for the Tajhat Police Station mentions case number 6, dated July 16, 2024. I did not mention the GD number under which I left the station and went to the hospital in the inquest report. Before I prepared my inquest report, the murder case of Abu Sayed had already been filed at the Tajhat Police Station.

Objection by the Prosecutor Gazi M.H. Tamim: Your Lordship, Rule 55 states that when evidence is admitted, then the whole content is also admitted. So, to cross-examine it, is redundant.

Defense Response: Rule 55 does not mention crossing and we are not giving a contradiction, we are just asking a few specific questions to clarify some points for the sake of credibility, because there are several discrepancies, especially regarding the times, which we will address during the arguments. So please allow us to ask the questions. Do not stop us.

(The objection was overruled.)

The witnesses to the inquest report were present when the report was being prepared. I interrogated the six witnesses about the cause of death. I was not pressured to prepare the report in front of the witnesses. I did not tell the witnesses about the pressure that was being exerted on me. Between August 5, 2024, and April 16, 2025, I did not file any written complaint to my superior authorities regarding the pressure and verbal abuse I faced during the preparation of the inquest report. I did not inform the Executive Magistrate, Ahmed Sadat, about the pressure because the pressure was being applied in his presence. Executive Magistrate Ahmed Sadat arrived at Rangpur Medical College Hospital at 10:30 PM, and the inquest report was prepared at 11:40 PM.

It is not true that I fabricated this story to save myself from liability in the Abu Sayed murder case and that I gave false testimony to the tribunal.

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):

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

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

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

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

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

In my professional career, I have used a shotgun only during training. I could not determine the distance from which the shots were fired. I did not count the number of small shotgun pellet wounds. I mentioned in the report that there were “numerous” wounds. I do not recall the exact time I observed the injuries on Abu Sayed’s body, including the wound on the back of his head. At the time of the incident, my immediate superior was the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of the Kotwali Police Station. I did not specify in the inquest report what caused the wound on the back of Abu Sayed’s head. When AC Arifuzzaman pressured me around 7:00 PM, Constable No. 724, Liton Debnath, was present with me.

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Md. Salauddin (In favour of Present Accused no. 23 and 29):

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

It is not true that a constable named Liton Debnath went with me.

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

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

The three words “shotgun bullet wound” not being mentioned in the inquest report was a major flaw in the inquest report.

Objection by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman: Your Lordship, the investigating officer of this case, is present at every hearing. This is harmful to us because our defense’s entire strategy is being revealed. The investigating officer is learning everything beforehand.

Tribunal’s Response: Alright, we will check what Rules say and then confirm our decision.

Prosecutor Gazi M. Tamim: ICT Act Section 8(1) clearly states that the case’s investigating officer can assist the prosecution during the trial.

(The objection was overruled.)

Not mentioning the exact cause of death was also another reason for the flaw.

There was no bandage on the back of the head from where the blood was oozing. The head area on the stretcher was blood-stained. Standing in front of the morgue, SI Arifuzzaman sir had asked me to see the body from inside the morgue.

During the inquest, the body was observed for four to five minutes to prepare the report. I cannot say whether the duty officer of the police station had recorded the information received through the wireless message in BP form 65. 

Objection by the Prosecutor Gazi M.H. Tamim: Your Lordship, Rules of the Tribunal say that court time should not be wasted and time management should be strictly maintained.

Defense Response: We are not wasting any of the court’s valuable time. I myself believe that every second of the court is valuable. I am only asking those questions that are necessary. Without asking them, we will not get justice and the tribunal is already holding hearings every day. How much more expeditiously can we proceed? This is already moving very fast, isn’t it?

(The objection was overruled.)

I don’t remember from what time to what time I saw the body.

[After that, when the defense counsel proceeded with the questions, he was obstructed by the chairman again and again. The judges were trying to adjourn till the break ends. They were repeatedly getting up and leaving, and court staff came and stood by. Then he was not allowed to ask the question, and the judges went on a break.]

[After the break, the defense counsel pleaded to ask the question to the chairman, but he refused and only allowed a suggestion. Then the defense counsel proceeded with the suggestion.]

It is not true that I gave false testimony under oath about the flaws in the inquest report.

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