UPDATE (Bangladesh): Investigating officer changed six times on the alleged custodial death of a man; the case extraordinarily drags on

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information about the custodial death of Mr. Sajedur Rahman Sarkar Sajid (please see UA-190-2006 and UP-147-2006). We were informed that the Bangladesh authorities have recently changed the investigation officer (IO) of the case for the sixth time, while none of the previous investigators have completed the investigation report for further prosecutory action against the accused police officers. Moreover, only one police officer out of 12 alleged perpetrators has been charged with murder thus far. Serious concerns arose regarding the investigation process in this case. We were informed that the 5th investigation officer of this case was allegedly bribed by the alleged perpetrators to hush up the case. The AHRC is deeply concerned by the extraordinary delay of the investigation into this case. We call on you to push the government to form an impartial and fair judicial inquiry team into this case and speed up its investigation so that the alleged perpetrators are punished without further delay. 

UPDATED INFORMATION:

On 13 February 2007, the Special Superintendent of Police (SSP) of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Mr. Kawsar Ahmed Haidori, who was the fifth Investigating Officer (IO) of the murder case of Mr. Sajedur Rahman Sarkar Sajid, went to Gaibandha to investigate the case. The previous four IOs were Mr. Nur Alam, the former Officer-in-Charge (OC) of the Gaibandha Sadar police station; Mr. Anil Kumar Das, Sub Inspector (SI) of the Detective Branch (DB) of Gaibandha; Mr. Mostofa Kamal, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) of the CID of Bogra Zone; and Mr. Anil Chandra Shome, ASP of the CID of Rangpur district. Allegedly, none of these investigators conducted fair investigation into the murder of Sajid because of continuous pressure from the political leaders and deliberate inaction of the police and other governmental authorities.

SSP Mr. Haidori stayed in the Circuit House of Gaibandha during his 2-day long stay in the Gaibandha town. He asked the witnesses to meet him at the “Dak Banglo” (a public rest house) of Gaibandha. But, afterwards the statements were taken in the office room of the OC of the police station. He took the statements from Sajid’s father Mr. Abdur Rauf Sarkar, Sajid’s brother Mr. Abdul Mazed Sarkar, and Mr. Aminul Islma Golap, Nagorik (citizen) Committee leader and a complainant in Sajid’s murder case.

According to these three persons, SSP Mr. Haidori allegedly insisted the victims’ relatives and concerned persons to produce “eye-witness” of the torture and murder of Sajid, although this is difficult for the relatives to do since the murder occurred during police custody, where relatives and common people have no access. In fact, it is the IO who has the responsibility of identifying the “eye-witness” of the case, and he cannot pass along this duty to the victim’s relatives. The IO should have interrogated the allegedly responsible police personnel and the on-duty officers of the Gaibandha Sadar police station, who know the details about the victim’s death.

SSP Mr. Haidori also spoke to the accused police officers of the districts during his investigation. Suspiciously, late at night before departing from Gaibandha, all 12 alleged perpetrators allegedly went to the “Dak Banglo” to meet SSP Mr. Haidori. The alleged perpetrators, who were working in different districts of the country that are around 100 kilometers apart from Gaibandha, allegedly bribed SSP Mr. Haidori with a huge amount of money so that none of them will be convicted and punished in connection with the said case. This is a clear attempt of the accused police officers to hush up the case as a “suicide” case.

Sajid’s father Mr. Abdur Rauf Sarkar and the Citizen Committee leader Mr. Aminul Islam Golap allege that the police are putting their utmost effort into making the investigation report a farcical one. According to them, the district police administration played very poor roles since the murder of Sajid took place in June 2006. The allegations are:

1. The police allegedly made a distorted inquest report regarding Sajid’s death. Besides, Mr. Nur Alam, then OC of the Gaibandha Sadar, who became the first IO of the case himself, merely lodged an “Unnatural Death” (UD) case (No. 18) for the victim, while refusing to register it as a murder case, though the victim’s family attempted to do so.

2. Mr. Bhanu Lal Das, the then Superintendent of Police (SP) of Gaibandha district, repeatedly claimed that Sajid had committed ‘suicide’ in the female custody cell of the Gaibandha Sadar police station. The question regarding the reason for Sajid’s being put in the “female custody cell”, while the “male custody cell” was not over crowded on that particular day was raised.

3. When the post mortem report asserted that “Death was due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation, which was anti-mortem and homicidal in nature”, the then OC became bound to lodge a murder case (No. 27); however he deliberately avoided to do so despite the complaint of Sajid’s father, although the police of the Superintendent of Police’s office, declared that the father’s complaint was recorded officially, with the case number of 27 on 24 May 2006. Further, the then OC only lodged a case against SI Mr. Abu Yusuf, while refusing to register three other complaints against the 12 police officers lodged by the victim’s father, elder brother and the leader of the citizen committee.

4. In the complaint, the OC brought charges only against Sub Inspector (SI) Mr. Abu Yusuf out of all the perpetrators, for the torture and death of Sajid. Meanwhile, despite the assertion of the post-mortem report, the alleged perpetrators and investigating officers still referred to Sajid’s death as ‘suicide’.

5. The Lungi (a traditional cloth for men) of Sajid, which was seized by the police were not included in the list of seizures as an evidence of the incident.

6. It is alleged that the police have intentionally created confusion regarding the place where Sajid’s death took place. The former SP Mr. Bhanu Lal Das, in a meeting at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Gaibandha, said that Sajid’s body was recovered from the female custody cell, while the CID SSP Mr. Haidori said that the body was recovered from the male custody cell.

7. SI Mr. Yusuf, the only person charged with murder amongst the alleged perpetrators, has already been released from jail a couple of months ago, and is now allegedly attempting to hush up the case by persuading the investigators, including SSP Mr. Haidori, along with other alleged perpetrators.

The role of the Magistrates in this case is also questionable. The victim’s relatives allege that Magistrate Mr. Kiran Chandra Roy, who prepared the Inquest Report on Sajid’s body, made a distorted report. For instance, the magistrate wrote that “no other sign of injury found” except “a round stain on the throat”. On the other hand, in the post-mortem report the medical doctors mentioned that they found marks of injuries on the throat, left elbow and left thigh, which is contradictory to the inquest report.

Sajid’s father also said that when he went to meet one of the former IOs, CID ASP of Bogra Zone, Mr. Mostofa Kamal, the ASP assured him that he will conduct a ‘fair investigation’ into his son’s case, showing the AHRC appeal letters on Sajid’s murder. However, this promise was never fulfilled. Instead, the police are dragging on the case through the changing of the the IOs, one after another, without producing any effective result. “The police are doing nothing but lying,” the frustrated father said.

On 30 March 2007, Sajid’s father said that recently the SSP of the CID, Mr. Kawsar Ahmed Haidori, has handed over the responsibility of the investigation of his son’s case to an Inspector of the CID of the Bogra Zone, Mr. Mirza Sharafat Ali. Mr. Sharafat is the sixth investigating officer of this case in ten months. Sajid’s father said that the newly assigned CID Inspector Mr. Sharafat came to his fabric shop on March 27. However, none of the investigation officers have finished their investigation report on this case.

Meanwhile, the SSP of the CID Mr. Kawsar Ahmed Haidori was assigned to conduct an investigation into the famous torture case of Mrs. Shahin Sultana Santa, which the AHRC has been seriously tackling. According to Santa, Mr. Haidori allegedly submitted a totally distorted report disregarding the seriousness of the case, based on the fact that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s (CMM) Court of Dhaka dismissed her case (he distorted it because her case was dismissed (For further details, please see: UP-040-2007, UP-207-2006). Considering the history of conduct, the credibility of Mr. Kawsar Ahmed Haidori as an investigator is extremely questionable.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Among thousands of human rights violation cases, only a few have been tried due to extreme public and media pressure in Bangladesh’s three and half decade’s worth of history. It is almost impossible for the victims or the families of the victims of gross human rights abuses to get justice. Both the politicians and the police never want to let the laws of the land proceed according to its word and maintain true equality. Both the politicians and the police are responsible for the torture and ensuing death of Sajid; they invested all their resources to create another instance of farcical trials where the allegations against the alleged perpetrators will not be properly investigated or proven.

Now, the present interim government of Bangladesh is beyond any direct political attachment. The interim government could realize that it is not holding the office to supplement the bad deeds of its predecessors, that it needs not do as the immediate past government did in the case regarding the death of Sajid in the Gaibandha police custody. The deceased’s family could have had new hopes to get justice following an honest initiative by the government. But, unfortunately, the present government has been proving true the famous proverb of Bangladesh: “Whoever goes to Lanka becomes the Raban” (meaning that whoever takes the governmental power ensures impunity to the public servants, exploiting the people). None but the Bangladesh Government believes that the police officers of the country will investigate the cases against their colleagues fairly and impartially.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please immediately write to the concerned authorities listed below demanding a fair and impartial judicial inquiry into this case. Please also urge them to charge all the concerned police officers with murder and ensure the speedy and fair investigation into this case.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER