THE investigation into fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim’s murder has taken a turn as the attorney-general has ordered an inquest within his prerogative as stipulated under Chapter 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

 
This was based on evidence that was scrutinised from the initial classification of murder based on the first information report and related reports, facts alleged, investigations at the crime scene and photographs.

The vehicles in question would have also been scrutinised, all witness statements cross-checked and, most crucially, the opinion of the forensic pathologist would have also been taken into account before making a decision to go on with a coroner’s inquest.

It is not out of the ordinary for a case that has been initially classified as murder to be brought to court by way of an inquest. Such cases in inquiries of deaths through criminal investigations can evolve into a graver or a lesser offence at the completion of the probe.

We must always remember that investigations exist in a criminal justice system not only to prove a case but to also exonerate those unjustly accused of an offence. 

A Kedah-born fireman, 24-year-old Adib was the only person to have died in the riots after armed intruders stormed the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Subang Jaya, Selangor, late last month.

The fireman was allegedly pulled out of his emergency rescue van and beaten up before he was found unconscious by strangers who then took him to a hospital.

There have also been claims that Adib sustained injuries after he was run over by a reversing fire truck after it was attacked with stones and sticks.

Adib and his colleagues from the Subang Jaya fire station were earlier summoned to the scene after the mob set fire to several vehicles.

He was treated at the National Heart Institute before succumbing to his injuries three weeks later. To date, police have yet to arrest Adib’s killer despite arresting and remanding four individuals early this month. The four have since been released.

Cases are classified initially by the police based on the initial reports lodged. The facts relayed will be the facts in issue by the complainant.

In this case, the police acted on the facts in the first information report. Arrests made earlier were expected and normal by way of procedure.

The clarity of the case progresses as investigators take time to piece together the puzzle, especially when there are multiple versions to the “facts in issue”. 

There is also the possibility that facts in the first information report are not accurate, for reasons best known to the person who lodged the report, and that entails a different course of action. 

Witnesses will be interviewed and those believed to be suspects will be detained. The statements recorded will be compared with evidence collected at the scene of crime and/or weapons seized. If that is the case. This will assist the police in deciding on the course of action they will take when making recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

There have been allegations of different versions on Adib’s cause of death, and some are said to distrust the police in the manner investigations are being conducted.

An inquest will provide the opportunity for any party to produce evidence to the coroner through proceedings. It will be neutral in that sense.

A coroner’s inquest will make the facts transparent, complemented with the fact that all interested parties can be involved through legal representation as “friends of the court” (amicus curiae) during proceedings. 

Normally, the victim’s statement is crucial for verification of facts. It is unclear as to how much Adib assisted in the investigations before succumbing to his injuries. This will be revealed during the inquest.

Upon Adib’s passing, the police have had to depend on the post-mortem and forensic science to ascertain the cause of Adib’s death. Forensic science is accurate on that score, as the injuries give a clear picture as to the cause of death. 

The whole investigation would have become clear upon the completion of the post-mortem and the expert opinion of the forensic pathologist.

All parties now should be patient and allow the law to take its course in ensuring justice for Adib and his loved ones. – December 28, 2018.

* G. Selva reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.