The 'open verdict' from the inquest into the death of R Gunasegaran in police custody was erroneous and contradictory to evidence, the Kuala Lumpur High Court heard today.

Counsel M Visvanathan, who represented the family, claimed that coroner Siti Shakirah Mohtarudin did not take a “critical approach” in questioning the conflicting testimonies of police witnesses, while disregarding the consistent testimonies of three others.

NONE Gunasegaran, 31, was detained along with four others in an anti-crime raid in July 2009.

The police claimed he collapsed while being fingerprinted at the Sentul police station between 6.45pm and 7pm, and died due to illnesses related to drug abuse.

However, Visvanathan has maintained that Gunasegaran died from a large injury on his chest measuring 28cm x 8cm x 5cm, after being kicked by Lance Corporal Mohd Faizal.

He was found dead the same day as political aide Teoh Beng Hock , who fell to his death from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Selangor headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2012 under mysterious circumstances.

Coroner Siti Shakirah Mohtarudin had returned an open verdict in the inquest in Oct 2010, ruling that the cause of Gunasegaran’s death while in police custody could not be conclusively proven.

His sister R Ganga Gowri filed an appeal in Nov 2010, and today judge Kamardin Hashim heard arguments from counsel Visvanathan.

'Coroner ignored criticial evidence'

Among the issues raised by Visvanathan against the coroner's verdict are as follows:

  • The coroner claimed to have made the decision based on a Sudden Death Report (SDR), when the police did not even lodge such a report.
  • A “critical approach” was not taken against the witnesses from the police force, despite the inconsistencies in their testimony.
  • Resuscitation efforts were considered as a possible cause of the large injury on the victim’s chest, despite testimony from a medical officer that no resuscitation efforts on Gunasegaran had taken place.
  • The time of death was estimated to be between 6.45pm and 7.20 pm, despite both Visvanathan and the deputy public prosecutor agreeing with a medical report which estimated Gunasegaran’s time of death at about 5.30pm.
  • The testimonies of three other men detained along with the victim, who made statutory declarations affirming that Mohd Faizal had kicked Gunasegaran, were disregarded.

Contradiction in police testimonies

Going through the details of each witnesses’ testimony in the inquest, he pointed out to the High Court that there were clear contradictions in the testimonies by several police personnel, which are summarised below:

  • Several police witnesses claim the raid began at around 5.30pm, when station records indicate it was 3pm.
  • Gunasegaran was not listed as being arrested in the initial police report filed, and later another report was filed saying that he had attempted to flee before being arrested.
  • The police claim the victim died between 6.45pm and 7pm, but according to Dr Nurulhasanah Mustapar, who conducted the first autopsy, police personnel informed her that he had died at 5.30pm.

He also cast suspicions on the decomposition of the victim’s body, which foiled efforts to conduct a conclusive second post-mortem as requested by the deceased’s family.

Body allowed to decompose

He questioned how a body stored under proper conditions in Hospital Kuala Lumpur’s morgue could deteriorate to the point where conclusions had to be drawn from the first autopsy.

“If I showed you pictures of the decomposed body, you will not be able to eat lunch,” he told reporters after the hearing, calling it a “mystery”.

NONE Ganga Gowri ( right ), who also spoke briefly to reporters after the hearing, said that closure would only come when the people responsible for her brother’s death were charged, and when there were no more such deaths in police custody.

Also, according to her, nobody from the police force or government had come to apologise to the family over the incident.

She looked visibly distraught as she entered the courtroom earlier, but maintained her composure.

A verdict on the appeal is due on July 19, three days after the three-year anniversary of Gunasegaran and Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

Deciphering the reason behind custodial deaths