Everyone succumbs to the marmoreal touch of death. But no one can predict whether that death will occur naturally or otherwise.
I think it is safe to conclude that BUET student, Fardin, encountered an unnatural death, whether it be suicide or murder. From the perspective of social science, we all know that society is the catalyst of any incident and its consequence, Fardin's death is no exception.
If we consider whatever conclusion our law enforcement agencies have reached and analyze the answers given in respect to the questions of BUET students, they only lead to further questions. Some of which I present below.
1. Law enforcement agencies have said that Fardin committed suicide by jumping off Sultana Kamal Bridge. Usually, except for swimming, if anybody dives from a certain height into the water, the water resistance can cause injuries -- the injuries created from the impact, or even the injuries created from the collision between the span of the bridge and Fardin's body, will not be the same as clear signs of man-made harm that was done to his body. Our law enforcement have yet to comment on this.
We all know that the autopsy usually points to the cause, manner, and time of death. If the autopsy fails to detect any of them, for further findings a viscera report needs to be prepared within 15 days after the autopsy. Given that there was confusion regarding the injury on the back of Fardin's head -- on whether it was created either by a human or a collision with the bridge span -- law enforcement agencies could still ask for a viscera report. But, we have heard nothing to that end.
2. Law enforcement have stated that, around 2:34am, a sound of water splashing was detected on the river, which they claimed to be the sound of Fardin's body hitting the water. Such data is impossible to gather without sophisticated audio forensic tools -- are we to believe that our law enforcement have such sophisticated technologies set-up over the Sultana Kamal Bridge from before the incident even took place? How exactly did they even know that Fardin would dive from that exact location on the bridge?
3. According to Police regulations, we all know that law enforcement agencies cannot speak publicly while investigations are still in operation. But we all have seen that they actually have publicly revealed much of the information, at least the kind of information that can put the minds of people at ease (to some degree) while still keeping certain information that should be made public to themselves -- such as the lack of transparency behind how they were able to detect the sound of water splashing. Both of which bring up questions of forensic ethics.
4. After extracting Fardin's body, as the plaintiff, Fardin's father filed a case on November 10, 2022. To that end Bushra was arrested on the same day. Law enforcement have stated that Bushra had no involvement with the death of Fardin but, then again, Bushra was sent to jail on November 16. If Fardin had indeed committed suicide, what was the reasoning behind detaining Bushra for a week? We all know how our society views women, it certainly did not help Bushra to be labelled as a perpetrator despite her innocence. Who should be held accountable for this?
Restorative justice is a concept that is still alien for us here in Bangladesh, as indicated by the case of Fardin's mysterious death, but clearly that is what we need in cases such as these, of which there are far too many.
The existing criminal justice system cannot, and will not, take responsibility for all the families which have been dragged through the mud. It cannot manage rehabilitation services for Bushra. And it cannot, in the broader sense, ensure justice for anyone involved in this case.
Nikhil Chandra Nath is a freelance contributor.