The verdict of the widely-condemned killing of Dhaka University student Abu Bakar was given eight months ago, acquitting all 10 former activists of ruling Bangladesh Awami League’s student wing Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL).
But nobody – neither the plaintiff of the case nor the victim’s family – knew about the pronouncement of the verdict whereas the practice is that the prosecution will inform both the plaintiff and the victim’s family about the verdict
The fourth additional metropolitan sessions judge, Md Zahidul Kabir, delivered the verdict on 7 May 2017. Prothom Alo obtained a copy of the verdict recently.
Abu Bakar, a third-year bachelors student of Islamic History, was severely injured “by a teargas shell lobbed by the police” during clashes in F Rahman Hall between two rival factions of the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) on 2 February and died at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital the following day.
A university committee and a hall committee were formed to identify the persons responsible for his death, side by side with a police investigation.
The nine-member university committee packed up the enquiry without ascertaining the exact reason behind the violence or identifying the persons responsible. It recommended a fresh enquiry "by a high-level expert committee".
The syndicate, however, expelled ten students from the university following the submission of the report.
BCL's Barisal group activist Omar Faruque filed a case with the Shahbagh police station against 14 BCL leaders and activists loyal to the then hall committee president Saiduzzaman Faruque.
The 14 were accused of injuring Bakar, which was later turned into murder case after his death.
Police later framed the charge sheet accusing eight of them, but when the victim’s family raised objection, a supplementary charge sheet was framed accusing a total of 10 BCL activists in the murder case.
On behalf of the plaintiff, a public prosecutor – advocate Saiful Islam –conducted the case.
As all of the accused have been acquitted, the verdict said nothing about who killed Abu Bakar.
At the same time, the time for filing an appeal against the verdict, aimed at identifying the killers, has elapsed too by this time, blocking the path for the victim’s family to get justice.
The court has ascribed the failure to identify the killers to the weak investigation conducted by the police.
“The post-mortem report said Abu Bakar died of the head injury caused by a strong hit, but neither any evidence nor any arms were confiscated from the accused,” read the verdict.
Police presented the bloodstained lungi before the court as the only evidence.
Eleven out of 22 prosecution witnesses gave testimony in court, but none of them said Abu Bakar was killed in gunfire by the accused.
Almost all of the witnesses said Abu Bakar was severely injured by a teargas shell lobbed by the police during the clash and the post-mortem report lends credence to this claim.
Four police officials investigated the case in phases. The verdict, quoting one of the top investigators and senior assistant police super Rezaul Karim, said Shahbagh police station officer-in-charge along with some 20 to 25 police members went to the DU hall at the time of clash and police lobbed teargas shells to disperse BCL groups.
Although the case statement said Abu Bakar died in gunshots, the post-mortem report said he died of injury of the hit of hard blunt weapon.
It’s to be noted that the very same police officer, Rezaul Karim, was made the investigation officer of the case.
The court said the investigation officer, Rezaul Karim, neither recovered teargas shells nor any hard blunt weapon from the place of occurrence and he didn’t even try to do so.
According to Rezaul’s testimony in court, the teargas shells were fired by the police led by him.
The first investigation officer (IO) of the case, inspector Emdadul Haque, also had told the court that he heard police lobbed teargas shells from outside during the clash.
But, he in his investigation report said Abu Bakar was killed in the gunfire of Saiduzzaman.
Assistant police super of Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Md Abdul Halim submitted the supplementary charge sheet but he didn’t give his testimony before the court.
The case plaintiff, Omar Faruk, however, said he didn’t go to court to file the case and even he didn’t know who typed the case statement as he was undergoing treatment at a hospital.
According to him, the investigation officer himself visited him at hospital and talked to him.
Asked why the prosecution didn’t inform either the plaintiff or the victim’s family, public prosecutor Saiful Islam admitted, while talking to Prothom Alo, that he didn’t inform anyone about the pronouncement of the verdict as none contacted him.
Asked why he didn’t file an appeal against the verdict, he said neither the plaintiff nor the victim’s family approached for any appeal.
He also said the time of filing an appeal has elapsed and there is no scope now to file the appeal.
As approached, the law minister said he would look into the matter as to why an appeal was not filed.
Abu Bakar’s elder brother Abbas Ali, who resides in Tangail, heard about the verdict first from Prothom Alo and broke down into tears.
“With a high of hope for justice, I went to Dhaka to give my deposition before the court travelling all the way from Tangail, but the irony is, we were not even informed that the verdict has been pronounced. And all the accused have been acquitted,” said victim’s brother in tears.
He went on saying, “My question to the government is: Then who killed Abu Bakar? We want an answer from the government.”
The news of acquittal of the accused had made the victim’s father, Rustam Ali, dumbfounded and he remained silent with a blank stare.
The victim’s mother Rabeya Khatun was heard saying from inside the house, “Those who killed my innocent baba [Abu Bakar] have not been brought to book. What a country is this?”
When his attention was drawn to the court observation regarding the investigation, investigation officer Emdadul Haque just said, “I’ve presented before the court whatever information I’ve obtained in my investigation.”
CID’s special police super Abdul Kahar Akand, who was entrusted with overseeing the investigation, said he too didn’t know about the pronouncement of the verdict.
He said the CID was given the responsibility of investigation much later as the case was investigated by police at the beginning. “And they should have kept the evidence,” said Kahar adding, he doesn’t know as to why the evidence was not recovered.
The 10 former BCL activists who were acquitted from the murder case are: then F Rahman Hall BCL president Saiduzzaman Faruque, Mafidul Alam Khan Tapu, Raqib Uddin Rafique, Mansur Ahmed Rony, Asaduzzaman Jony, Alam-e-Julhas, Touhidul Islam Khan Tushar, Abu Zafar Md Salam, Enamul Haque Ershad, and Mehedi Hasan Lion.
All of them were the residents of F Rahman Hall of the Dhaka University at the time of occurrence.
When contacted, the plaintiff, Omar Faruque said, “I had raised an objection to the first investigation report. Later CID was given the responsibility for the investigation, but that investigation too was not done properly.”
He said although they’ve got the acquittal from the court, these BCL leaders cannot avoid their responsibility in the murder of Abu Bakar.
He said some 30 more students were injured in the clash between the rival groups – Faruque group and Mehehi group. “Where is the justice for those injured?”
He went on saying, “I, the plaintiff, was injured in the clash, but the police didn’t even produce my treatment certificate before the court.”
The prime accused in the case, Saiduzzaman Faruque, told Prothom Alo, “The verdict was pronounced in our presence. The court has acquitted us.”
When contacted, former law minister Shafik Ahmed said it’s the responsibility of the police to bring the killers of Abu Bakar to book and it’s the prosecution which should prove allegations before the court.
He said the law officials concerned must be made answerable as to why they didn’t file an appeal against the verdict.
*The article originally published in Prothom Alo print edition has been rewritten in English by Abu Taib Ahmed.