Behind Apratim’s killing: An iPhone, a Tk 5,000 debt and an ‘unequal friendship’

Police initially believed that 13-year-old Ishayat Shahriar Apratim had been lured away and killed simply to steal an iPhone. But as the investigation progressed, other details emerged: resentment over Tk 5,000 owed to someone, his “unequal friendship” with older youths, and an alleged lure to make TikTok videos.

Prothom Alo gathered these details by speaking to several officials involved in the investigation, local residents and others familiar with the case.

According to them, there had been a plan to take away the iPhone 17 Pro Max that Apratim was carrying. The people arrested in connection with the killing may also have had separate interests and grievances, they said.

At a district police press conference on Sunday, police said Apratim had been taken to an isolated wooded area in the Sananda part of Lalmai Hill as part of a plan to snatch his mother’s iPhone. When he resisted attempts to take the phone, he was struck on the head with bamboo sticks, police said.

District police said three people, including Saiful Islam alias Tuhin, had been arrested in the murder case filed by Apratim’s father. The other two are juveniles. Police are also investigating the involvement of another young man.

Police officers involved in the investigation have described the relationship between Apratim and the people arrested as an “unequal friendship”. The people Apratim associated with were not his classmates and were older than him. Investigators have also found photographs and videos of them together, as well as information about various videos made for TikTok.

‘We’ll make TikTok videos with the iPhone’

Mobile phone messages played an important role in getting Apratim out of his home on Friday, the day of the killing. Sources involved in the investigation said Tuhin repeatedly sent messages to the phone Apratim was carrying that day, asking him to come outside. At one point, Apratim was told that they would use the expensive iPhone he had with him to make TikTok videos and take photographs.

According to people involved in the investigation, Apratim eventually agreed. He left home with the iPhone at around 2:30pm on Friday. His family had also previously said that he had taken his mother’s phone because he planned to take photographs with friends. He never returned home.

According to police sources, Apratim met Tuhin between 3:00pm and 3:10pm. Their movements were subsequently captured by at least four CCTV cameras in different areas.

The footage showed Apratim and Tuhin walking side by side and talking. They appeared to be behaving normally. In one piece of footage, two more people could be seen walking behind them. Investigators said another piece of footage showed all four together.

In addition, a CCTV camera near the university captured Apratim with another person. That footage became an important lead in identifying the first suspect.

An isolated forest 1.5 kilometres from the main road

Apratim was killed in an isolated wooded area in the Sananda part of Lalmai Hill. A visit to the scene found that it could be reached by a dirt road about 1.5 kilometres from the main road. Police sources said CCTV footage showed Apratim and Tuhin walking towards the hills. Investigators said two more juveniles later joined them there.

According to the police’s preliminary investigation, an attempt was made to take the phone from Apratim between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm on Friday. When he resisted, a struggle broke out. Tuhin first struck Apratim on the head with a bamboo stick, after which the others also hit him. After Apratim died, they took his phone and left the scene.

Officials involved in the investigation said they had found that another young man named Siam was not at the scene. Police are nevertheless investigating whether he played a role such as keeping watch nearby at the time of the incident. After speaking with local residents and visiting the scene, police found that the area was quite isolated, making it difficult for anyone outside to know what was happening there.

Apratim’s body had serious injuries to the head as well as several other wounds. Investigators believe some of those wounds may have been inflicted after his death. The body may have been dragged around by jackals during the night. Police are also reviewing the autopsy and forensic findings in this regard.

Another dispute over Tk 5,000

In addition to the iPhone, police have found information about another dispute involving Tk 5,000. A juvenile who was arrested in the case worked at YesTech, a business owned by Apratim’s father, KM Firoz Shahriar, that sells mobile phone parts. Sources involved in the investigation said Apratim had lent the boy Tk 5,000 and had recently been asking for the money back.

According to information obtained during police questioning, the boy had become resentful towards Apratim over the issue. Investigators have learned that he may also have thought that he would not have to repay the money if Apratim were no longer alive.

A phone call begins to unravel the case

An important turning point in the investigation came while Tuhin was being questioned. According to a timeline provided by sources involved in the investigation, Tuhin was taken into custody at around 9:00am on Saturday. At that point, the officers questioning him did not yet know that Apratim had died. They learned about the recovery of Apratim’s body at around 11:30am.

Investigators said Tuhin initially denied involvement in the killing. After prolonged questioning, he admitted his involvement at around 8.00 pm on Saturday, they said. Even then, Tuhin did not want to disclose the names of the others. According to an investigator, he was “bound by a promise” not to reveal their identities.

But while Tuhin was being questioned, his phone repeatedly received calls. The calls were from the juvenile who worked at Apratim’s father’s business. This caught the investigators’ attention. The boy was subsequently taken into custody.

According to police, he was still wearing a T-shirt bearing the name of Apratim’s father’s business when he was detained. After learning that the boy had been detained, Tuhin disclosed the name of another juvenile. Police then took that boy into custody as well.

Why did he not take his own phone?

Police are also investigating whether the suspects had tried to conceal their movements in advance. According to people involved in the investigation, the 15-year-old juvenile who worked at Apratim’s father’s business had knowledge of mobile phones and technology.

On the day of the incident, he did not take his own phone with him. Instead, he left home carrying another family member’s phone.

Investigators suspect this may have been done so that, if the phone’s location was later tracked, his presence at the crime scene would not be detected. However, police are carrying out further examinations of technological and other evidence to establish whether this was indeed the reason. The boy’s father has not been seen since the incident. Police have not yet reached any conclusion about whether his absence is connected to the killing.

Phone taken to Tuhin’s home

Police say Tuhin left the scene with Apratim’s iPhone after the killing. According to sources involved in the investigation and members of Tuhin’s family, the phone was later hidden at his home.

When police went to Tuhin’s home in Sananda under Sadar South Model police station at around 8:00pm on Saturday, his mother, Shirina Akhter, took the phone out from under a mattress and handed it over.

Members of Tuhin’s family said he had returned home before evening on the day of the incident. At that time, he told his younger brother Tushar to hide the phone carefully.

How did the ‘unequal friendship’ develop?

Apratim was a Class Seven student at Border Guard Public School. School authorities described him as a quiet, sociable and academically good student. Acting headteacher Ferdousi Jahan said he had never been seen getting involved in trouble at school.

Some local residents, meanwhile, said Tuhin used to spend time around the university with several younger boys and had formed a group. Some residents said there had been an attempt at one point to bring Apratim into that group.

At a press conference on Sunday, however, Superintendent of Police Md Anisuzzaman said police were investigating whether a juvenile gang was involved. He also said none of those arrested had previous police records.

At an emergency press conference at the Secretariat on Sunday, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said those involved in the crime were, in many respects, like juvenile offenders. He said they were like a juvenile crime group and had a relationship, association and friendship with Apratim. Their ages were five to 10 years greater than that of the victim, he said.

Police have information showing Apratim and those individuals spending time together, taking photographs and making TikTok videos. Investigators have described the relationship arising from this age and social gap as an “unequal friendship”.

A death that touched the public

The case spread beyond Cumilla and across the country from the moment Apratim was reported missing. His mother, Nahida Begum, appealed on Facebook for help finding her son. The organisation Moon Alert, which works to locate missing children, also circulated Apratim’s photograph. Countless people subsequently shared the image in an effort to help find him.

After news spread on Saturday that his bloodied body had been recovered from the forest of Lalmai Hill, the public concern turned into grief and anger. Parents, teachers, journalists, students and people from various walks of life shared photographs of Apratim on social media. Many expressed concern about children’s safety, the involvement of adolescents in crime and broader social deterioration.

After her son’s body was recovered, Apratim’s mother, Nahida Begum, said, “You could have taken the iPhone, but why did you kill my son?”

Hundreds of people attended Apratim’s first janaza at Cumilla University’s central field at 10:00am on Sunday. After a second janaza at the Gandhamati Eidgah field, he was buried at a local cemetery. As he bade farewell to his son, Apratim’s father, KM Firoz Shahriar, said, “No one else should ever have to lose a child the way I have.”

Apratim’s death has not remained confined to a single murder case. It has also raised fresh questions about children’s friendships, relationships centred around mobile phones, and the risks of children associating with older people without their families’ knowledge.