Witness 18: Dr. Md. Rajibul Islam

Evidence given by Dr. Md. Rajibul Islam

My name is Dr. Mohammad Rajibul Islam. My age is approximately 45. My address is [redacted] Chuadanga. I am working as an Assistant Professor and Head of the Forensic Medicine Department at Rangpur Medical College. During the anti-discrimination student movement last year, on July 16, 2024, I completed the post-mortem of the deceased student, Abu Sayeed, on the same day. In the investigation, multiple pellets were found in Abu Sayeed’s body. I wrote the opinion that Abu Sayeed died due to internal bleeding caused by many pellets entering various parts of his body during the post-mortem, and that the death was ‘homicidal in nature’. I went to submit the report to the investigating officer of Case Number 6, dated July 16, 2024, at the Tathat Police Station. But the investigating officer, after discussing with his superior authorities, asked me to prepare the report again instead of accepting it. So, I submitted the report a second time. However, that was also not accepted. I submitted the same report for a third time, but it was also not accepted. Then, on September 30, 2024, I was called to the Vice Principal’s room at Rangpur Medical College. Vice Principal Dr. Mahfuzur Rahman, CTSB’s MP Siddik, Rangpur Metropolitan Police’s DC Maruf, and the President of the SWACHIP’s Rangpur Medical College branch, Dr. Chandan, were present there. DGFI, NSI, and other police officials were standing outside the room. They pressured and intimidated me to provide a post-mortem report according to their wishes. They said that if I did not provide a report as they wished, a case would be filed against me, and action would be taken. They also stated that there was an intelligence report against me. They tempted me with a trip to Singapore and Thailand. When I said I did not have a passport, they asked me to visit Cox’s Bazar for two weeks instead. They pressured me to report death due to a head injury instead of a bullet injury and to report death due to neurological shock.

I replied, “Sir, the scene of Abu Sayeed being shot and killed was broadcast live on the media, and the whole world has seen it. If I report death due to a head injury, not only in Bangladesh but people all over the world will look at the medical community with contempt.”

SWACHIP’s president, Dr. Chandan, told me, “You can see that there’s a business going on with Abu Sayeed’s body. The leader is concerned about this matter. Just give the report as the police want. We will take care of your situation.” By “the leader,” he meant Sheikh Hasina. But despite all that, I did not back down. I did not agree to their proposal.

I did not find a head injury on Abu Sayeed. In my latest report, the fourth one, I did not mention a gunshot injury in the injury description. However, I provided a report with other descriptions, including a pellet injury, and wrote the opinion: “the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above-mentioned injuries which was anti-mortem and homicidal in nature and please consider the circumstantial evidence”. They then took this report away. (At this time, the witness broke down in tears.)

Despite being continuously threatened, I provided a truthful report, risking my life. The fact that I was able to give the three reports that were previously returned to the investigating officer is my relief.

Amir – up to “risk” is fine; the rest is an opinion.

 Tamim – I will record whatever the witness says. I will not take your word, nor the President’s word. I will determine if it is reasonable to take it down.

I want punishment for Abu Sayeed’s killers, those who ordered the killing, and all the accomplices. The investigating officer questioned me. Subsequently, Al Jazeera interviewed me for their documentary. I have a copy of that documentary on a pen drive. It was shown. The word “video” was said four times. The video was displayed. (The witness’s interview was conducted in the video. In the said video, the body of the deceased Abu Sayeed is seen, and numerous bullet marks are visible on his chest.)

I also prepared another report. The police had told me to destroy it. But, I had kept it separately. Therefore, it was not given to the investigating officer of the case.

In the documentary, Salman F Rahman is heard talking to the then IGP about collecting the post-mortem report. However, it is proven that there was pressure from our secretarial level to change this report.

Amir Hossain – He cannot state that it is “proven.”

Gazi Tamim – Are you speaking according to the law? We are providing you with the highest cooperation.

Gazi Tamim – I will make the correction if the witness states it.

Amir Hossain – This is his opinion.

Cross-examination by the learned state defense on behalf of the absconding accused Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal

I provided it in the post-mortem report on July 16, 2024.

Usually, it is provided within 24 hours. If a medical board is formed, it may take longer.

No, it was not.

Yes, I prepared Abu Sayeed’s latest report on July 30, 2024. However, I mentioned the date as July 16, 2024.

Yes. However, it is mentioned in the memo as 30/7/2024

Yes. My official copy does not match the post-mortem report. The original copy matches. Sometimes the seal does not transfer onto a verified copy

Yes. This happens when the ink is low.

It is not true that I prepared the post-mortem report in a hurry.

It is not true that I have said something false when I said that pressure was created to prepare the post-mortem report.

No, I did not examine the video.

It is not true that the documentary I showed is not correct.

It is not true that it is my opinion that “the leader” means Hasina.

It is not true that I gave false testimony in the tribunal as I was instructed.

Tamim – You will be held responsible if anything other than what has been recorded goes outside.