Draft:State vs. Mehedi Hasan Rasel and Others
 | This is a draft article. It is a work in progress open to editing by anyone. Please ensure core content policies are met before publishing it as a live Wikipedia article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Last edited by Bruno pnm ars (talk | contribs) 1 second ago. (Update)
Finished drafting? or |
| State vs Mehedi Hasan Rasel | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Dhaka Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 |
| Decided | 8 December 2021 |
| Citations | 25_8783 SI 1 Death Reference 1/2022 (with) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Justice A. K. M. Asaduzzaman Justice Syed Enayet Hossain |
| Case opinions | |
| The actions of the accused were premeditated and involved deliberate acts of physical assault leading to the death of Abrar Fahad. The judgment described the murder as a "heinous crime," stating that the punishment should serve as a deterrent to prevent similar incidents in the future | |
| Keywords | |
| Murder of Abrar Fahad | |
State vs. Mehedi Hasan Rasel and Others, popularly known as the Abrar Fahad murder case was a criminal case brought before the Dhaka Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 on the supervision of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh following the killing of Abrar Fahad, a student at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), on October 7, 2019. The case, initiated through a murder complaint filed by Abrar’s father, charged 25 individuals associated with the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) for their roles in the crime. The prosecution alleged that Abrar was tortured to death in his dormitory room for expressing dissenting political opinions online.
The proceedings culminated in a judgment delivered on December 8, 2021, where the court sentenced 20 of the accused to death and imposed life imprisonment on five others. The case underscored issues of campus violence and free speech suppression, with significant public and institutional reactions, including a ban on political activities at BUET.
Facts
[edit]Abrar Fahad, a second-year student of electrical and electronic engineering at BUET, was killed on October 6, 2019, inside a dormitory on the university campus. Members of the BUET chapter of the Bangladesh Chhatra League, a student political organization and the student wing of the Bangladesh Awami League party, were accused of carrying out the act.
Abrar had posted comments on Facebook criticizing the government's agreement with India concerning water-sharing from the Feni River. According to case records, the accused interrogated and assaulted Abrar for several hours, which resulted in his death.
Following the incident, law enforcement arrested 25 individuals, most of whom were students at BUET and members of the BCL. The Dhaka Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 initiated the trial in November 2019. On December 8, 2021, the tribunal delivered its verdict, sentencing 20 individuals to death and 5 others to life imprisonment.
Judgment
[edit]The Dhaka Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 issued its judgment on December 8, 2021. The court convicted 25 individuals, sentencing 20 to death and 5 to life imprisonment. The judgment was based on evidence that included forensic reports, CCTV footage, and witness testimonies.
The court described the actions of the accused as premeditated and held them directly responsible for the murder. Those sentenced to death were identified as the individuals directly involved in the physical assault, while those receiving life sentences were found guilty of aiding and abetting the crime.
The case advanced to the High Court for mandatory review and appeals, as required by Bangladeshi law.
Significance
[edit]The case has drawn attention to issues surrounding student political activities and the governance of educational institutions in Bangladesh. In response to the incident, BUET authorities imposed a ban on all forms of political activity on campus, reflecting institutional changes prompted by the case.
The case is noted for its use of the Speedy Trial Tribunal, underscoring the judicial system's effort to address public concerns and deliver justice within a shorter timeframe.
Furthermore, the case has raised broader discussions about the limits of political expression, freedom of speech, and accountability in academic spaces. It continues to be referenced in ongoing dialogues about reforming campus environments and addressing the misuse of political power.