Testimony of Abu Bakar Siddique

My name is Naik-156 Md. Abu Bakar Siddique, age 39. My father’s name is Ahmmad Ali, and my mother’s name is Akter Banu. My permanent address is XXXX District: Bogura. Profession: I am currently employed by the Rangpur Metropolitan Police. On July 16, 2024, I was serving in the same position at my current workplace.

On July 16, 2024, our police duties were assigned. I was stationed at Park Mor along with
Armed SI Md. Ashraful Islam. I arrived at the duty post around 8:40 AM carrying a gas gun
issued in my name. Around 9:40 AM, the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Tajhat Police Station,
Md. Robiul Islam, along with his accompanying officer force, arrived at Park Mor and took
position. Subsequently, at approximately 10:45 AM, AC Md. Arifuzzaman arrived at Park
Mor. ADC (DB) Shahanur Alam Patowary, the Camp In-Charge of Begum Rokeya University, SI Nirastra Bibhuti Bhushan Roy, also arrived at Park Mor. They gathered all of us together and briefed us on maintaining law and order. Later, around 11:50 AM, all officer forces were moved to Gate No. 1 of Begum Rokeya University. Some time after that, a discriminatory student crowd marched from Lalbagh towards Gate No. 1 of Begum Rokeya University, taking a position opposite the police. When the Anti-discriminatory student protesters attempted to enter through Gate No. 1, an altercation ensued with our AC Arifuzzaman. Subsequently, under AC Arifuzzaman’s direction, a baton charge was initiated against the students. Unless they dispersed, AC Arifuzzaman ordered the firing of gas guns. Following the gas gun fire, the students scattered in various directions. When some gas fumes entered our eyes, we entered through Gate No. 1 of Begum Rokeya University. Later, once the situation normalized slightly, we, along with AC Arifuzzaman, went towards Park Mor. From there, AC Arifuzzaman took a gas gun from me and fired gas shells at the student crowd gathered at various locations.

Later, we re-entered through Gate No. 1 of Begum Rokeya University. Outside Gate No. 1,
the students gathered and then forcefully opened the gate to enter. Then, our AC Arifuzzaman communicated with higher authorities via wireless set and ordered those with shotguns to fire. They proceeded towards Gate No. 1 while firing shotguns.

At that time, the discriminatory student protesters dispersed in various directions, but one student stood on the road with both arms outstretched. Subsequently, he was injured by police gunfire, and his fellow students took him away. Later, I learned that the injured student was named Abu Sayed. He was shot by shotguns fired by our police ASI (Armed) Amir Hossain and Constable Sujan Chandra Roy. AC Arifuzzaman gathered everyone and took us towards Modern Mor, where we remained stationed. Around 4:00 PM, DC (Crime) Abu Maruf Hossain arrived at Modern Mor. He then took us with him and attempted to reach Gate No. 1of Begum Rokeya University. However, unable to reach the location, he took us to Tajhat Police Station, where we remained.

Pleading by the Prosecutor Mizanul Islam

Your Lordship, with your permission, I would like to ask the witness two additional
questions.

Chairman: Permission granted.

Prosecutor: My first question is regarding the young man who stood with both arms
outstretched and was injured: what did you learn about him subsequently?
Witness: Later, as we were heading towards Tajhat Police Station, I learned through an
officer that the injured student had passed away and that his name was Abu Sayed.

Prosecutor: My second question concerns the wireless set you mentioned earlier, through
which AC Arifuzzaman was communicating with the senior officials. Which ranks of police
officers were connected via that wireless set?

Witness: On the wireless set I mentioned earlier, officers ranging from the Police
Commissioner to the Officer-in-Charge (OC) were connected.

Objection raised by the Defense Counsel Aminul Ghani Titu:
Objection, My Lord. The Prosecution cannot extract a statement by asking questions in this manner, as the witness did not state these facts voluntarily earlier.
Prosecutor: My Lord, under the law, I am entitled to ask questions, and I am not asking
leading questions. I am asking these questions solely to uncover the full extent of the incident and to ensure clarification.
Defense Counsel: Then let it be noted that these facts were not in the initial statement and
were elicited through questioning subsequently.
Chairman: Okay, this is fair.

The Investigating Officer interrogated me on March 18, 2025; this is my deposition.

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

I joined the Police department on January 27, 2005, based on merit. On July 16, 2024, I was
on duty alongside 14 others, including SI (Armed) Ashraful Islam Sir. I cannot recall all their
names, but ASI (Armed) Amir Hossain Sir was among them. I do not recall how many
shotguns and gas guns were issued. However, fifteen gas shells were issued in my name. I
fired five gas shells on July 16, 2024, and AC Arifuzzaman took ten from me and fired them.
I cannot recall the exact time I submitted the gas gun on that date. I provided a written report
to the armory stating that 15 gas shells were used. However, I cannot recall whether I
mentioned that AC Arifuzzaman fired 10 of those shells. I fired the gas shells from outside
Gate No. 1 of Begum Rokeya University. I cannot say where Armed SI Ashraful Islam was
positioned while I was firing. I do not recall if I performed any duties to suppress the Anti-
Discrimination Student Movement between July 16, 2024, and August 5, 2024.
It is not true that I directly participated in the killing of Abu Sayed or in suppressing the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement.

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 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.]

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 Mamun-Ur-Rashid (In
favour of Absconding Accused no. 16-Pomel Barua, 17-22, 24):
[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 Md. Shahidul Islam (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 15-Amin Hossain, 25, 26, 27 and 28):
[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.]

It is not true that AC Arifuzzaman was not present at the scene of the incident.

On July 16, 2024, when a discriminatory student procession of 1,500 to 2,000 students
approached, we did not throw brickbats at them from our position. I did not hear the order for the baton charge from AC Arifuzzaman directly with my own ears. All of us police personnel on duty were wearing helmets. In my written statement, I mentioned firing five gas shells, but I cannot specify the exact time I did so. I cannot explicitly state at what time AC Arifuzzaman took the gas gun from me.

It is not true that AC Arifuzzaman did not take any gas gun from me or that he did not fire any gas gun himself. I do not recall the distance between AC Arifuzzaman and myself when he discussed with his superior authorities over the wireless set. I cannot accurately state what AC Arifuzzaman said over the wireless set. I do not recall hearing AC Arifuzzaman order the firing of shotguns directly. When the student standing with outstretched arms was injured, his fellow students did not throw any brickbats from behind him. I cannot accurately state the distance between that student and myself. I saw with my own eyes that Abu Sayed was injured by police gunfire.
It is not true that no superior police officer ordered subordinate police officers to fire any shots. It is also not true that, even after firing gas shells myself, I testified in this case as a witness in collusion with the prosecution to save myself following the change of power and I gave false testimony against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

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.]

I do not recall what time it was when the students forcefully entered through Gate No. 1 of
Begum Rokeya University. I cannot specify the exact time when the students dispersed in
different directions after the gas gun fire. I did not see Abu Sayed’s body fall onto the road
while his fellow students were carrying him away. I fired the gas gun with full attention. It is not true that despite firing gas guns at the protesters myself, I have colluded to become a witness in this case.

Pleading by the Prosecutor Mizanul Islam:
I would like to re-examine this prosecution witness, My Lord, in accordance with Section
10(1)(e) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973, which states that the prosecution
may re-examine a witness with the permission of the Tribunal.
Chairman: Alright. Permission granted. You may proceed.

Re-Examination by the Prosecution

Prosecutor Mizanul Islam: During your examination-in-chief, you stated that AC Arifuzzaman ordered the firing of shotguns after communicating via wireless, and you witnessed this. However, during cross-examination, you claimed you did not hear whether he
gave the order. Why is there a discrepancy and difference between these two statements?
Witness: [Stuttering and remaining silent]

Prosecutor: My Lord, with the leave of the Court, I would like to invoke Section 10(1)(g),
which allows the prosecution to ask leading questions, typically reserved for cross-examination—during re-examination with the Tribunal’s permission. Therefore, with your permission, I wish to ask a leading question.

Chairman: Permission is given.

Prosecutor: You saw AC Arifuzzaman, after speaking on the wireless, signal with his hand
to those holding shotguns, directing them to open fire? Is that correct?
Witness: Yes, Sir.

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

It is not true that I gave this statement during re-examination against my will.

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

It is not true that I made this statement during re-examination as taught by the prosecution.