Officer
in charge of the Taipan police station ASP Rodney Pasla Harris today
admitted there was a meeting called by the late Subang Jaya OCPD Zainal
Rashid.He was testifying on behalf of the government, which is one of the defendants named in the negligence suit brought by Kugan’s mother N Indra.
“The meeting was called after office hours and not at the Selangor police contingent headquarters, but at the Subang Jaya district police. The meeting was called following the release of the post mortem report on the matter,” said Rodney, when asked by lawyer Latheefa Koya (above), representing for Kugan's family.
He, however, said he could not remember the exact date in which the meeting was called and did not specify if it was held before or after the second port mortem.
At the meeting, to which all of the D9 (serious crime) officers stationed at Taipan were called, Rodney claimed Zainal had asked one of them to admit to beating Kugan or become a scapegoat.
Rodney, however, further testified that he only saw Kugan on two days, namely Jan 15 and Jan 20, 2009 and claimed to have given the victim water.
He is the first officer after Navindran to admit as to attempts to find a scapegoat.
No cover-up
Khalid (left),
who is a also a defendant in the negligence suit, had earlier in the
morning maintained in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that there
was no cover-up in the police investigations.“After the incident was reported, I asked all nine officers involved in Kugan’s interrogation (to be) transferred to the Selangor police contingent headquarters.
“This is so that they would not interfere in the ongoing investigations,” Khalid said.
Asked by Sivarasa Rasiah, who is also acting for the family, whether a meeting was called by the late Zainal - at which the officers responsible for the interrogation were asked to put up one person as a scapegoat - Khalid said he did not know.
“I know that investigations were carried out under Section 330 of the Penal Code (for causing injury) and an officer had been narrowed down to have caused it,” he said.
Navindran (right),
who has since been convicted of causing hurt to Kugan and sentenced to
three years' jail, testified last month that he had been forced by the
police to become the scapegoat.The constable had testified that he was not on duty when Kugan was said to be suffering from breathing difficulties about 11.40am on Jan 20, 2009.
Navindran said he was supposed to work from noon until 4pm that day and prior to that, Kugan had been placed in the care of Detective Korporal Silvem and Lans Koperal Sani. He said he had come in earlier that day and helped out when Kugan was having difficulties in breathing.
Continuing his testimony, Khalid said the internal investigations into the case were handled by an officer from Bukit Aman, who he identified only as SAC Shatar.
Khalid said he himself did not know the outcome of the investigations and that Shatar has since retired from the force.
Taipan not a lock-up station
Khalid in his three-and-a-half-hour testimony said Kugan was not taken to a police station with a lock-up as police were only investigating his case.
He said there were grounds to do so and that this was in accordance with the Inspector-General's Standing Orders and it was to assist in the police investigations.
“There is some leeway for us not to take the suspect to the lock-up to assist in the investigations. This is such a case,” Khalid said.
Kugan was being investigated for a spate of luxury car thefts and he was taken from the Puchong police station lock-up and held at the USJ-Taipan police station for five days, but not in a lock-up.
“I know that there was no lock-up and when this happens it is the duty of the OCPD and also the officer-in-charge of the station to look after it,” he said.
Under the police force Lock-up Rules, a person must be sent back to the lock-up he or she was taken from between 6pm and 6am the next morning. The USJ-Taipan police station, which is located in a shophouse, does not have a lock-up.
Asked whose responsibility it was to feed the suspects in such a circumstance, since the Taipan police personnel said they had to fork out their own money, Khalid said this was the responsibility of the OCPD and the person in charge of the station.
And as for Aminulrasyid's case...
Sivarasa also tested the DIGP's credibility as a witness during the hearing by bringing up the case of Aminulrasyid Amzah and produced the police report lodged by Aminulrasyid's mother against Khalid over a possible cover-up.
“Yes I agree there was a police report lodged against me, but there was no attempt at cover-up in the case, as also with the Kugan case, especially as this involved the police,” Khalid said.
“I deny uttering any report describing the boy (Aminulrasyid) as a criminal. I did not make such statements.”
Khalid maintained that in Aminulrasyid's case, a parang was found under the car seat.However, when Sivarasa (right) showed him a copy of the Shah Alam sessions court finding on the matter, that there was no parang mentioned, Khalid maintained his answer that there was.
Earlier, senior federal counsel Azizan Md Arshad objected to Sivarasa raising the Aminulrasyid case on grounds that the cases were not related.
However Justice Singham allowed the question as a test of Khalid's credibility
Aminulrasyid's mother, Norsiah Mohamad, had lodged a report against Khalid for claiming that her son was a criminal. She did this to clear the boy's name as well as to say that no parang was found in the car he was driving.
Corporal Jenain Subin was initially jailed for five years by the Shah Alam sessions court, for causing the death of the teenager.
However, the High Court reversed the decision and acquitted Jenain, much to the despair of the boy's family.
No comments:
Post a Comment