ps- A thought for the earthquake victims in Haiti :(
When I read of these cases, I cannot help but feel that some of our police stations are places where Malaysians are taken to experience just how dark and brutal other humans can be.
My mind is filled with images of men being taken into rooms where there is no law, and no decency – only an unrestrained compulsion to hurt and inflict violent pain.
It feels like Gunasegaran was one such victim of this darkness – his room being in Sentul, his time around the same as Teoh Beng Hock’s ordeal. Neither men walked out alive; and neither did Kugan or many others.
Haris has reproduced a write-up of the latest inquest proceedings which I reproduce below, after some background from older statements.
For a larger survey and some detailed case studies, see:
Since first learning of the death of Gunasegaran, the family of the deceased have since been in contact with eye-witnesses to Gunasegaran’s arrest and detention by the police authorities and have been informed that:
i) at the time of his arrest, Gunasegaran was subjected to physical assault by a member of the police force; and
ii) at the Sentul police station, where Gunasegaran and several other arrestees were taken, Gunasegaran was subjected to further assaults by the same police officer who had assaulted him earlier, but with much greater severity, causing Gunasegaran to lose consciousness which he never regained until his death.
Latest proceedings (link to first report of proceedings here) –
The 3rd day of the Gunasegaran inquest revealed some pertinent information.
A key prosecution witness, the arresting officer, Corporal Norazman said he had not included the name of the deceased, R. Gunasegaran, in the arrest report which named the other 4 arrested along with him.
His stated reason was that the deceased was in possession of a substance believed to be drugs
However he had not reported it and does not know what had happened to the substance.
He also gave a series of evasive answers in denying any assault of the victim.
When Visva told this witness in cross-examination that there were witnesses to the assault of the deceased, this witness responded that he had not witnessed any assault.
Visva : The deceased was hit with a stick?
Witness : I did not see this.
Visva : The deceased was kicked?
Witness : I did not see this.
The witness explained that he was doing documentation in a front room and did not see the deceased collapse at the back near the toilet before the deceased could give his urine sample.
He was uncertain if the deceased was alive while being taken to the hospital about 7 pm as his eyes were open.
The witness confirmed that he did not check the deceased for any pulse , nor was he aware of anyone administering first aid to the deceased.
He said he learnt of the victim’s death only after being told by ( DSM) Rajinder
However he could not explain why the pathologist’s report said he was told the victim had died at 17.30.
The witness affirmed that the arrest report was to confirm arrest but could not explain why the deceased, who was arrested along with 4 others at about 5pm was not included in the report filed at 6.21pm.
Although he had earlier stated the reason was the victim was in possession of substances suspected to be drugs, implying Gunasegaran’s arrest was reported separately, in the course of the hour long cross-examination, it was apparent that no such report had been made.
Visva chided him for misleading the court.
Asked again why he had not made the arrest report, there was a long pause before he replied that “it was done by Rajinder, not that it was not done”. (Rajinder’s was not a separate report but a “menambah fakta” at 8.27pm to the original report done at 6.21.- i.e, well after the victim had died).
The witness disagreed with Visva’s suggestion that there was an attempt to cover up the death in custody, to dump his body somewhere, off the record.
Visva put it to him that he did not come to court to tell the truth.
Earlier , in the course of the cross examination, the witness became agitated and argued with Visva in a raised voice.
Visva asked the court to caution the witness and to cite him for contempt if he persists in showing disrespect to an officer of the court.
The next witness was Rajinder, after which Visva requested to visit the lock-up where the death took place.
Photographs of the location were taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment