The Tangail schoolboy, who has been sentenced to two years' imprisonment by a mobile court, yesterday told the High Court about the alleged torture on him by a local MP, an OC and a UNO.
“The OC [officer-in-charge] blindfolded me and beat me up at the police station and told me I would be put on crossfire. Fearing crossfire, I confessed I had written that [threatening the MP on Facebook],” said Sabbir Shikder.
He said the lawmaker had hit him and the upazila nirbahi officer kicked him.
The ninth-grader, who was sentenced by the mobile court reportedly under the Information and Communication Technology Act for threatening Awami League MP Anupam Shahjahan, appeared before the HC following its suo moto rule.
However, according to the UNO's lawyer, the boy was sentenced on charges of carrying marijuana.
Tangail's Sakhipur UNO Mohammad Rafiqul Islam, also an executive magistrate, and Sakhipur Police Station's OC Mohammad Maksudul Alam also appeared before the HC bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das as per its September 20 order.
After hearing arguments, the HC bench fixed October 18 for passing order on this issue.
Following a report published in The Daily Star under the headline “Boy jailed for FB comment about MP”, the HC on September 20 issued the suo moto rule and asked the UNO and the OC to appear before it yesterday and explain why a schoolboy was sentenced to two years in jail under the ICT act over alleged threats made to a lawmaker via Facebook.
The HC also granted Sabbir, a student of Protima Bonki Public High School, bail and asked him to appear before it yesterday with relevant documents to ascertain his age.
Sabbir told the HC, “I was home on September 16. At 9:00pm, someone called me from outside. I came out and saw a man in plainclothes and a policeman. They asked me to go to the police station. They took me to the office room of the OC. The OC showed me a mobile phone and asked me what I had written. I said I did not write that. He repeatedly questioned me about it and I replied I did not write that.
“Then I was taken to the MP's house. I saw that the MP was sitting on a sofa. I was produced before the MP. He [the lawmaker] asked me what I had written against him. Then he hit me twice. I didn't mind, thinking he might be angry. The MP asked the OC to take me to the police station.
“I was taken to the police station where the OC severely tortured me blindfolded and threatened me with crossfire. Fearing crossfire, I confessed I wrote that. The OC asked me not to write such things anymore. After three days, I was taken to the UNO's room. The UNO kicked on my chest, and I fell unconscious. Someone took me away. I was taken to the police station and the OC told me I was handed two years' imprisonment.”
Sabbir burst into tears and told the court that he wanted justice.
The court asked him if anybody had taught him to say all these before it, and whether he had carried marijuana.
He replied that nobody had taught him, and that he does not smoke marijuana.
Justice Enayetur Rahim questioned how things would go if a public representative gets so sensitive.
“Our judgments are criticised on Facebook and YouTube, but we don't take those into cognisance,” he said.
The HC asked advocate Khurshid Alam Khan, who placed The Daily Star report before the judges on September 20, to submit Sabbir's statement to the court through swearing an affidavit.
During yesterday's hearing, UNO Rafiqul's lawyer SM Rezaul Karim told the HC that there is no connection between the general diary lodged in favour of the MP and the instant mobile court verdict.
Acting on a tip-off, the magistrate went to the place of occurrence and ordered police to arrest Sabbir after recovering marijuana from his possession, he said, adding that Sabbir pleaded guilty and then the magistrate convicted him.
If Sabbir was aggrieved at the process of trial court and its judgment, he could have filed an appeal with the appellate forum, but without opting for an appeal, he made up a story, advocate Rezaul Karim said.
It is an alibi which cannot be accepted, he argued.
The counsel said the impression The Daily Star report gave was that the magistrate had acted beyond his lawful authority, as the ICT act is not within the mobile court's schedule.
Justice Enayetur Rahim asked the lawyer whether a mobile court carries any computer during its operation, as the order of conviction and sentence against Sabbir was composed by a police in a computer.
Rezaul Karim said mobile courts cannot carry any computer, but the order against Sabbir was composed in a computer so that the court cannot raise questions in this regard.
The court asked whether the mobile court can sentence Sabbir to two years' imprisonment for carrying only 100 grammes of marijuana, as the minimum punishment for carrying it is six months' jail and the highest punishment is three years' imprisonment.
The lawyer said the mobile court could sentence any accused to highest two years' imprisonment in such a case, no matter whatever is mentioned in the Narcotics Control Act 1990.
OC Maksudul's lawyer Nurul Islam Sujan told the HC that The Daily Star report was misleading and run intentionally to tarnish the image of the lawmaker.
The editor and reporter concerned should be ordered to appear before the court, he said.
The HC asked The Daily Star reporter to submit an affidavit on the authenticity of its report to it by October 18 and exempted the UNO and the OC from personal appearance before it.
On September 18, Bangla dailies Prothom Alo and Jugantor published reports saying Sabbir was detained for allegedly threatening MP Anupam Shahjahan. On September 19, The Daily Ittefaq published a report saying Sabbir was convicted by the mobile court for threatening the MP via Facebook.
Khurshid Alam told the HC that there were some anomalies in the statements of the mobile court verdict regarding the charge framing against Sabbir and the seizure list.
The seizure list of the case was made at 5:15pm on September 18, but the charge was framed and the mobile court verdict was delivered around 5:00pm the same day, he said, adding that the seizure list is supposed to be made before the charge framing and the delivery of the order.
Being driven by conscience, Khurhsid said, he placed The Daily Star report before the HC on September 20 to examine whether the mobile court delivered the verdict in accordance with law, not to malign the lawmaker.