Where is Ayush’s private tutor, Eva Rahman?

The whereabouts of Eva Rahman, the private tutor of 12-year-old Ayush Chakraborty, have emerged as one of the key questions in the investigation into the killing of four members of the Ganapati Chakraborty family in Machuapara, Rangpur.

Local and investigation sources say Eva, who was closely associated with the family, has not been seen in the area since 22 August, two days after the killings. She reportedly did not return to the area even after the bodies were recovered.

Where she is, why she has apparently gone into hiding or disappeared, and what she knew about the Chakraborty family before the murders are now questions investigators need to answer.

There is no publicly established evidence that Eva was involved in the killings, nor has it been confirmed that police have formally identified her as a suspect. Her significance lies primarily in her close relationship with the family and her regular presence at their home. Investigators could potentially obtain important information about the family’s circumstances before and after the murders by locating and questioning her.

Why is Eva being sought after the murders?

Ganapati Chakraborty, his wife Pritilata Chakraborty, their daughter Agami Chakraborty and their 12-year-old son Ayush Chakraborty were killed at their home in Machuapara on the night of 20 August.

Police have since arrested two suspects, Siddhartha Das and Mugdha Das. Statements reportedly given by the two accused in court have also provided investigators with an account of their alleged involvement.

However, sources familiar with the investigation say the case may not be fully explained by the statements of the two arrested suspects alone.

Investigators also need to establish whether the family had received threats before the killings, whether Agami had been subjected to harassment, whether disputes had arisen over construction work at the family’s house, and whether the family had conflicts with politically influential individuals in the area.

This is where Eva Rahman’s name becomes significant.

Eva was a neighbour of the Chakraborty family and worked as Ayush’s private tutor. She regularly visited the family home and, as a result, became close to members of the family. She was reportedly particularly close to Pritilata, Agami and Ayush’s mother.

That means Eva may have had knowledge of matters inside the family that outsiders would not have known.

Did she know whether Agami had been threatened or harassed? Did she know whether the family had sought protection from anyone? Was she aware of disputes surrounding the construction of Ganapati’s house? Did she witness or hear anything before or after the murders that could help investigators reconstruct what happened?

These are among the questions that make finding her important.

Where has Eva been since 22 August?

According to the investigation report, local residents of Machuapara knew Eva as “Eva bhabhi”. She has reportedly been missing from the area since 22 August.

Her sudden absence following the killing of four people with whom she had maintained regular contact has raised questions.

Was she concerned for her own safety? Did she leave voluntarily? Did someone advise or pressure her to leave? Or does she possess information that could help explain events before or after the murders?

None of these possibilities has been established.

That is precisely why investigators need to establish her whereabouts and obtain her account rather than draw conclusions from her absence.

Did Eva know about the alleged harassment of Agami?

Another significant aspect of the investigation is the allegation that Agami had been harassed and threatened before her death.

According to local and intelligence sources cited in the report, a group allegedly led by Meril Sumon had repeatedly harassed or threatened Agami. The names of Parvez, Pavel, Momin Mia and Abu Humayra, among others, have been mentioned in connection with the alleged group.

The report further alleges that the harassment was carried out at the instigation of Ashfaq Sifat, the son of influential local Jamaat-e-Islami figure and former MP Mahbubur Rahman.

The allegations have not been independently established.

According to the report, Agami had asked her mother, Pritilata, to inform police about the alleged harassment. She had also reportedly told her neighbour and friend Pratha Mondal about the matter.

The report says that shortly before the murders, Agami asked Pratha through Facebook Messenger whether filing a general diary or a formal complaint with police could affect her prospects of securing a government job.

If verified, that exchange would indicate that Agami was sufficiently concerned about her safety to consider seeking police protection.

The key question is how much Eva knew about these developments.

Did Eva and Pritilata approach police?

According to the report, Pritilata and Eva met Detective Branch Deputy Commissioner Sonaton Chakraborty over the alleged harassment of Agami.

After hearing their concerns, Sonaton reportedly consulted a senior officer and directed Pritilata and Eva to seek assistance from Rangpur Metropolitan Police Commissioner Abdul Mabud.

If this account is accurate, it could establish an important line of communication between the Chakraborty family and senior police officials before the murders.

What exactly did Pritilata and Eva tell police?

Did they identify the people allegedly threatening Agami?

Was a general diary or written complaint filed?

What action, if any, did police take?

Those questions remain unclear and could be important in determining whether the family had sought protection before the killings.

Alleged relationship between Eva and the police commissioner

Eva’s alleged relationship with a senior police officer has added another layer to the questions surrounding her whereabouts.

The report claims that Sonaton Chakraborty introduced Pritilata and Eva to Police Commissioner Abdul Mabud. It further alleges that a close personal relationship subsequently developed between Mabud and Eva.

The report also cites local accounts claiming that Mabud was seen entering the Chakraborty family home several times with Eva.

However, no independent evidence establishing such a relationship has been presented in the report, and the accounts could not be independently verified. Neither Mabud nor Eva has provided a public response to these allegations.

Therefore, these claims should be treated strictly as allegations requiring verification.

Even so, if Eva did have regular access to the police commissioner, investigators may need to establish the nature and extent of their communication, particularly if she had previously approached him regarding threats to the Chakraborty family.

Questions surrounding Detective Branch officer Sonaton Chakraborty

The report also raises questions about the role of Detective Branch officer Sonaton Chakraborty.

Local residents reportedly told the investigators that Sonaton regularly visited Machuapara and had close relations with local priest Dhiman Thakur and his son Pran Bhattacharya Poran.

The reported chain of events involving Eva, Pritilata, Sonaton and the police commissioner therefore warrants scrutiny.

Who first informed police about the alleged threats against Agami?

What information reached senior officers?

What instructions were given?

Were those instructions followed?

And did any police officer subsequently communicate with people accused of threatening the family?

Answering these questions could help establish whether there were warning signs before the murders and whether the police were aware of them.

Construction dispute and alleged extortion

The investigation has also brought attention to construction work at Ganapati’s unfinished house.

Several weeks before the murders, Ganapati reportedly resumed construction. According to documents cited in the original report, he withdrew Tk 1.5 million from his General Provident Fund savings around 10 to 15 days before his death, although the money reportedly remained in his bank account.

The report alleges that several local BNP figures had demanded extortion money from Ganapati in connection with the construction work.

Ganapati had reportedly considered using his pension savings to finance the construction but ultimately did not withdraw the money.

According to Biswajit Chakraborty, son-in-law of Gopinath Chakraborty, the complainant in the murder case, Ganapati had been threatened by extortionists over the construction work.

These claims also require independent verification.

Another alleged dispute involving Agami

The report also names local priest Dhiman Thakur and his son Pran Bhattacharya Poran as influential figures in the Hindu-majority Machuapara area.

It alleges that Dhiman exercised considerable influence over the local Hindu community and that Poran allegedly demanded money from Ganapati while the house was being constructed.

The report further claims that Dhiman had proposed that his son Poran marry Agami. Ganapati reportedly rejected the proposal.

A family source cited in the report said Agami’s marriage had already been arranged with a man identified as “Aditkar”.

An intelligence source has alleged that the construction-related demands, the rejection of the marriage proposal and the subsequent murders could be connected.

At this stage, however, such a connection remains an allegation and would need to be established through evidence.

Did Eva know about the threats?

This may be the most important reason to locate Eva.

According to the report, Agami had told her mother about the alleged harassment, while Pritilata subsequently discussed the matter with Eva. The two women then reportedly approached police officials.

If these accounts are confirmed, Eva could be an important witness to events leading up to the killings.

She may be able to tell investigators who was allegedly threatening Agami, what kind of threats were made, how frightened the family had become, when police were informed and what response the family received.

Her testimony could therefore help investigators determine not only who may have been behind the alleged threats, but also whether there was an opportunity to prevent the killings.

Why finding Eva matters

Finding Eva Rahman does not mean that she was involved in the murders.

At present, there is no publicly established evidence proving such involvement.

Her importance comes from her position as Ayush’s private tutor, a neighbour and someone who regularly visited the Chakraborty household.

If she has indeed been missing or staying out of sight since 22 August, investigators need to establish where she is and whether she left voluntarily.

Just as importantly, investigators need to determine what she knows.

She may have information about threats against Agami, the family’s concerns about security, disputes over the construction of the house, or contacts between the family and local political or police figures.

Equally, it is possible that she knows nothing relevant to the killings.

That too can only be established by locating her and recording her account.

The unanswered questions

The arrests of Siddhartha Das and Mugdha Das and their alleged confessions are an important part of the investigation. But several questions remain beyond those statements.

Did the Ganapati family receive threats before the murders?

Who allegedly harassed Agami and why?

Did Agami or her mother seek police protection?

What exactly did Pritilata and Eva tell police officers?

What action did police take after receiving that information?

What was the nature of Eva’s communication with Police Commissioner Abdul Mabud?

Where has Eva been since 22 August, and why?

Did she have any contact with Meril Sumon, Pran Bhattacharya Poran, Dhiman Thakur, Ashfaq Sifat or BNP leader Shamsuzzaman Samu before or after the murders?

Who regularly visited the Chakraborty home before the killings?

And, crucially, did any senior police officer communicate with people accused of threatening the family before the murders?

Finding answers to these questions may help investigators establish whether the four killings were an isolated act carried out by the two arrested suspects or the result of a wider chain of events involving threats, personal disputes, alleged extortion and failures to act on earlier warnings.

For now, the whereabouts of Ayush’s private tutor remain one of the most significant unanswered questions surrounding the case.