Gunasegaran Rajasundram (1977 – 16 July 2008) was a Royal Malaysian Police detainee who died in the police lock-up while under arrest for suspicion of drug possession. Coincidentally, his death was on the same day as Teoh Beng Hock's body was found. The case of R. Gunasegaran is crucial to the discussion on police practices because it highlights several issues with the policing of Malaysia: the safety of whistleblowers, human rights during police custody, the procedures of inquests, and the practices of the police force. Understanding this case could bring us to find out what more could be done to better the policing system of Malaysia.
Gunasegaran worked as a toddy shop assistant. He was arrested together with other four detainees (Ravi Subramaniam, Suresh M Subbaiah and Selvach Santhiran Krishnan and one unknown Malay male). He collapsed while his thumbprint was being taken between 6.45pm and 7pm on July 16, 2008 at the Sentul police headquarters and was pronounced dead at 7.40pm at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital the same day.
His family members were later informed that Gunasegaran' death was due to drug abuse-related causes. This was substantiated with the burial permit issued by the hospital authorities. However, the deceased's family believed in another version of truth, that the death was due to police brutality instead of the reported drug abuse. Upon learning of the death, the family have since been in contact with eyewitnesses to Gunasegaran's arrest and detention by the police and have been informed that at the time of his arrest, Gunasegaran was physically assaulted; and that, at the Sentul police station, Gunasegaran was subjected to further assaults causing Gunasegaran to lose consciousness which he never regained until his death.
The Coroner's Verdict
On October 25, 2010, in the open verdict delivered by the coroner's court in the inquest to determine the cause of Gunasegaran s/o Rajasundram's, the coroner Siti Shakirah binti Mohtarudin found insufficient evidences to record a conclusion to the case. Open verdict, according to the Collins English Dictionary, means a finding by a coroner's jury of death without stating the cause. In other words, Gunasegaran's death was deemed suspicious by the jury but none of the other verdicts open to them could be reached.
According to the six-page judgment report done by the coroner, there were two versions of how Gunasegaran had died based on the testimonies of witnesses. The first version is that the deceased fainted when police were processing his thumbprints and then, he died on the way to the hospital due to drug-related issues as testified by both post-mortem reports. On the other end, following the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, the second version was that the deceased had been kicked and beaten by a police officer who arrested him that caused his death. Both versions can be accepted in her opinion but a post-mortem report is an undisputed prima facie evidence.
Response to Death
Gunesegaran's Family
On November 3, 2010, the family of R. Gunasegaran, most notably his sister Ganga Gowri Rajasundram, applied to the High Court to review the open verdict handed down at the inquest investigating his death. It had been more than one since Gunasegaran s/o Rajasundram's “sudden death” as classified by the police, but the family is still waiting for the truth of R. Gunasegaran's demise to see the light of day. A total of 23 witnesses have testified but yet, the truth was still unacceptable by the family of Gunasegaran. Ganga Gowri asked for a review of the coroner's decision that the injuries sustained by Gunasegaran could have come from attempts to resuscitate him. She also questioned the decision of the coroner that Gunasegaran had consumed drugs beyond lethal levels.
Non-governmental Organizations
This case has drawn the attention of many parties including the likes of The Malaysian Bar, World Organization against Torture (OMCT) and so on. In its statement on October 29, 2010, The Malaysian Bar questioned the effectiveness of the inquest when the coroner failed to reach a definitive finding in the case despite the strength of the evidences pointing towards the culpability of the police: testimonies of the three witnesses and the second autopsy report which found a 28 cm long, 8 cm width and 5 cm depth scar on R. Gunasegaran's chest.