Two police officers testifying at a John Doe inquest today were grilled over contradictory statements with regards to the arrest and alleged escape of 24-year-old missing detainee, G Francis Udayappan.

M Puravalen ( photo, left ), who is holding a watching brief for Francis' mother, G Sara Lily ( photo, right ), tried to re-establish the facts pertaining to Francis' arrest and the events prior to his alleged escape from police custody on April 16.

After re-calling the first witness, Sergeant-Major Chew Choon Peng, the arresting officer from Brickfields district police headquarters, Puravalen asked him to relate how the arrest was made.

Chew said when he arrived at the front of Francis' house, the youth was on a motorcycle which fitted the description police had of a motorcycle that had been reported stolen.

"I identified myself and arrested the suspect. After that, I asked for his details," he told the coroner's court on the fourth day of the inquest today.

He explained that the arrest was made based on the description given to him of '... an Indian boy riding a blue Yamaha motorcycle around the 'taman' (housing estate)".

Chew said the arrest was also made based on the information given to him after a cross-reference of the motorcycle chassis number.

Details sketchy

"At the time of arrest, the suspect was sitting on a stolen motorcycle, a fact that was established with instant verification, which makes it a commission of a crime," he said, adding that Francis was 'caught red-handed'.

But to subsequent questions regarding the arrest, Chew told the court that he was 'not too clear', 'did not notice', 'was unsure' or 'could not remember' much of the other details of the arrest.

Puravalen had pressed him on matters such as the exact location of the arrest, the presence of witnesses and whether the grounds of arrest were relayed to Francis or his family.

The arresting officer earlier testified that he and three other colleagues were at the scene of arrest for only 10 minutes.

"I saw two ladies outside the suspect's house. One of them was big in size. Then his mother returned home," said Chew, but was unsure as to whether she arrived by taxi.

Chew refuted Puravalen's statement that two policemen known as Murthi and Govind had entered Francis' house by opening the gates themselves.

"It (the arrest) could not have been inside (the house) because we have no authority to enter," Chew said.

He also pleaded ignorance when asked to confirm if Murthi had accused Francis of cheating his (Francis') ex-fiancee Seetha, to whom he (Francis) allegedly owed some money.

"I'm not sure if that's what happened as I only focussed on the suspect and the crime. My officers may or may not have spoken to the suspect or his family about other matters but since it would have been in Tamil, I can't be sure."

Neighbour witnesses

In summing up Francis' family's version of events, Puravalen stated that Francis had been arrested inside his house and that there were two neighbours who witnessed the arrest including family members and the driver of the taxi that Sara Lily had arrived in at that time.

The family also maintained that Francis' motorcycle was in the compound and not outside as stated by the police.

Puravalen then told the court that the family believed that the police van which Chew had arrived in prior to the arrest already had a motorcycle in it.

Questioning second witness Sergeant Chan Kim Chai, Puravalen attempted to reconcile contradictory facts as found in separate statements by the officer who had been in charge of Francis ( photo ) at the Brickfields police station.

Chan has since been suspended from duty and is being probed under two different sections of the Penal Code.

Chan had earlier testified in court that he had uncuffed the suspect's right hand outside the station's washroom so that he could clean up after vomiting and before he could re-cuff him, Francis pushed him and fled.

Puravalen, however, told the court that Chan - in a police report filed hours after the alleged escape - had not mentioned anything about unlocking the handcuff on Francis' one hand.

"Instead, he stated in the police report that the handcuffs were 'open'."

'State of panic'

Puravalen then told court that police used different types of handcuffs, which included the 'Siamese cuffs' that were used on Francis. The cuffs mentioned were unavailable for demonstration in court today.

Chan maintained that both his statements were accurate but later changed his reply and attributed the discrepancy to his 'state of panic' over the escape of a suspect and the pain arising from the injuries he sustained during the subsequent chase.

He also denied being forced to file a police report at 10pm the same day of the alleged escape upon returning from the hospital after treatment of his injuries.

Deputy public prosecutor Ishak Mohd Yusoff is assisting the court for the inquest which continues tomorrow.