KUMAR HASHIMAH & CO No 6(A), Jalan Abdullah,

PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA Jalan Bangsar,

ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS 59000 Kuala Lumpur.

Tel : 03-2282 5622

Fax : 03-2282 5245

P. UTHAYAKUMAR. LL.B, CLP.

____________________________

Office Hours :

Mon. – Fri.

9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Sat. & Sunday – Closed

Your Reference :

In Reply Please Quote : KH/June/Karthic/2010/anu

Date : 2^nd July 2012

Y. Bhg Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail,
Attorney General of Malaysia,
Aras 1-8, Block C3, Parcel C                        Fax: 03-88889369
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan             Email: ag@agc.gov.my

Putrajaya

Y. Bhg Tan Sri,

Re : Representation to reopen review investigations and prosecution in the suspected police cover up of the murder of Karthic a/l Rajah (KP: 850716-59-5005)

__________________________________________________________________

We act for Mr. Rajah a/l Velliyan of No. 2, Jalan Pasir Beringin 3, Taman Sepang Putra, Sg Pelek, Selangor who has instructed us to make this representation to your goodselves as follows:-

1. Our client’s son Karthic a/l Rajah (KP: 850716-59-5005) was murdered on 3/12/2010.

2. From the very onset and within five (5) days of the murder ie the vide his police report No. Sg Pelek 2253/10 and dated 8/12/10 (enclosed herewith as “Appendix 1”) our client had among others casted doubts on the Investigating Officer (I.O) Chief Inspector Balloo and asking for him to be replaced with another higher ranking ASP as the Investigating Officer for also the following reasons:-

a) At Item 10 our client had in his said police report dated 8/12/10 expressed doubts on the Senior Investigating Officer (S.I.O) ASP Zaiharul’s statement that the deceased had climbed over the ceiling (at the first floor entrance) to get into the building (when the ceiling can only withstand about 10 kg but his son is about 80 kgs). Also the deceased could not have gone up the small break of the ceiling at the said entrance. (Note : A specialist carpenter was never called to testify on this).

b) Our client instructs us that there is no reason for his son to climb over the ceiling when the door at the entrance to the first floor is usually open to allow customers from the illegal gambling and vice outlet below to use the toilet upstairs.

c) At Item 5 our client had specifically alleged that the and I.O is siding with the murderers.

d) At Item 4 our client had asked for the victim’s finger prints to be taken from the scene of the crime (above the ceiling) but which was not done.

e) At Item 6 the I.O had refused to give our client a copy of the Post Mortem report.

f) At Item 7 the I.O. had refused to give our client the status of the investigations.

g) At Item 10 our client had also stated that (the Senior Investigating Officer) (S.I.O) ASP Zaiharul was not interested in investigating the deceased’s murder.

h) At Item 11 our client had also stated that the I.O had refused to tell him how many suspects were detained and how many suspect’s statements had been taken.

i) At Item 12 our client had within 4 days of the said murder ie on 7/12/2010 at about 11.00 p.m seen the I.O. sitting together with the Chinese gangsters (Yap Ah Boi and another) who had murdered his son and who also run the illegal gambling and vice business at the Kedai Kopi Mathi, Sg Pelek, Selangor.

j) At Item 15 our client had stated that the real witnesses (Juliet Rani Nadarajah (the deceased’s girlfriend), Gobinath @ Boy, Dass, Vishnu, Murugan Nagaratnam, Murugan Ramasamy, Dinesh Letchumanan, Rajsipry our client and others were never investigated or statements taken from them) and/or were afraid to come forward as the local Sepang police (suspected to be linked with the murderers) would leak out the information. (Note : All these names do not even appear in the List of witnessess).

k) Even then this I.O. had chosen not to reply to our client’s said police report having seen the I.O with the murderers and the other queries.

3. Our client believes that Chief Inspector Balloo knows that the real culprit is Yap Ah Boi and another suspect whose name our client does not know but our client can positively identify him and who lives at No. 47, Jalan 3, Taman Sri Sungai Pelek, 43950, Sg Pelek as the criminals who had murdered his son. Yap Ah Boi is big sized and known to be the local gangsters. Both Yap Ah Boi and the other suspect have since “gone missing”.

4. But as Yap Ah Boi and the other aforesaid suspect are in the local area illegal gambling and vice business with the knowledge and/or involvement and/or link of Chief Inspector Balloo and the local Sepang police, they have been let off the hook. In fact “SP-10” Leong Wai Yiaw had testified that “Saya ingat tiga orang (he being small sized and so the other two accused) tak boleh fight, dia (deceased) badan besar”. “You cabut lari” was suggested by the defence Counsel.

5. And this illegal business is continuing right up to date. Even during the crime scene visit on the afternoon of 13/6/2012 as soon as the learned Judge Yang Arif Datuk Nurchaya Arshad and the learned DPP Zainal Azwar left, within minutes the illegal gambling outlet reopened. (coy of colour photo of the same “is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 2”.

6. Despite the aforesaid police report specifically casting doubt on the I.O it was this very same I.O who had vide his letter about one month later dated 4/1/2011 replied to our client. (This letter dated 4/1/2011 is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 3”).

7. As a matter of course the investigations should have been taken over by a Special Team led by/under the directions of the Selangor Chief Police Officer if not the Federal Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Chief.

8. Vide police report No. 4601/11 and dated 3/2/2011 our client’s nephew had lodged a police report amongst others that he had received a threatening phone call that he and our client would be harmed because our client had made a police report (against the I.O). A copy of this police report is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 4”.

9. Vide our client’s letter dated 8/3/2011 to the Federal Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Chief he had stated that the victim had gone to see the real suspected murderer named Yap Ah Boi for the return of the money that he had lent in the sum of RM 11,600.00 as he had promised to return the money on that date (copy of this letter dated 8/3/2011 is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 5”.

10. Our client had not been getting good feelings with Yap Ah Boi all the Chinese gangsters who are all known to the deceased and had made arrangements for his son to pay a pilgrimage visit to India with his girlfriend.

11. In fact the deceased and his girlfriend Juliet Rani Nadarajan had already booked their airline ticket to travel to India on 3/12/2010 but had stayed back to collect the said debt first. Copy of the deceased’s Electronic ticket, his Passport with visa to India and that of his said girlfriend is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 6”.

12. Vide our letter (M/s Kumar Hashimah & Co) dated 6/5/11 also duly acknowledged receipt by the DPP’s Office, we had once again written to the DPP of Selangor. In paragraph 4 at page 2 of this letter our client had again implicated the I.O with the Chinese gangsters who are believed to have murdered the deceased. Our client had also asked for the Investigation Papers (IP) to be reviewed with the view to also prosecute the suspected Chinese gangsters Yap Ah Boi and the other suspect herein above mentioned. But this I.O is still slated to be the last witness for the prosecution. Again we had requested for the relevant documents as Solicitors holding watching brief but we were never served with the same and neither was this our letter replied to. (A copy of this letter dated 6/5/2011 is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 7”.

13. Vide our letter (M/s Kumar Hashimah & Co) dated 30/5/11 duly acknowledged receipt by the DPP’s office we had notified the Selangor State Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) that we are on record as watching brief lawyers and had requested for copies of the relevant documents. (A copy of this our letter dated 30/5/11 is enclosed as “Appendix 8”). Up to date we were not served the documents and neither was our letter replied to.

14. Save and except for some documents reluctantly given to us at the Shah Alam High Court at Criminal Trial No. 45B-100-2011 which commenced on 11/6/12 and that too only after our recording our protest before the learned Judge. The learned DPP in conduct En. Zainal Azwar informed us during the trial that some of the other documents asked for were confidential, that he did not have copies for us or that he would give it to us as and when he refers to it during the course of the trial.

15. Our client avers that Leong Wai Yiaw (PW-10) as the person who had borrowed money from the deceased. Thus his evidence of having run away when seeing our client and having hurt his leg is consistent.

16. However the prosecution did not tender PW-10’s medical report having fractured his leg from jumping out of the first floor window (which our client doubts).

17. PW-10 had testified in Court that his room door was locked from inside and he did not open the door thinking that it was the police. So how is it that when the deceased had allegedly jumped into his room, he had started attacking the two Indonesian brothers who have been prosecuted of murdering the deceased. How did these two brothers suddenly come into the room when it was looked from inside? This “SP-10” was initially also charged for this murder and had been remanded at Sg Buloh Prison for about five and a half (5 ½ ) months from 3/12/10 to 15/5/11.

18. Our client avers that it is impossible for the deceased to have climbed up the ceiling especially while carrying about a 2kg brick on one hand at the same time and then breaking open the ceiling from exactly where “SP-10”’s room was from the ceiling of his room where he was found murdered.

19. To this effect the evidence of Prosecution Witness ASP Ooi Chew Ping (52) who testified that he is attached to the “Cawangan Siasatan Tempat Kejadiaan” at the Selangor Police Headquarters (IPK) as the “Ketua Unit Siasatan Tempat Kejadiaan” “untuk membantu Pegawai Penyiasat menjalankan siasatan sesuatu kes dengan mengumpul segala bukti-bukti yang berkemungkinan dengan kes tersebut!!” And his testimony that he was called upon by the I.O to assist in this murder case is highly suspicious.

20. We have cross checked with our former senior policemen friends who have confirmed that the position of “Ketua Unit Siasatan Tempat Kejadiaan” at the IPK (Selangor) does not exist and neither is this the usual procedure.

21. This leads our client to suspect that this ASP Ooi Chew Ping is linked to the said Yap Ah Boi, the other murder suspect and Chinese gangsters who had murdered the deceased. Our client believes that these gangsters had called ASP Ooi Chew Ping for help and thus his presence at the scene of the crime and testimony in Court.

22. And thus the “setting up” and/or fabricated evidence that the deceased had used a ladder, broke the ceiling from outside the entrance door to the building, went up the ceiling carrying a brick along with him at the same time, breaking open the ceiling from upstairs the room, jumping down straight into SP-10’s the room inside the building and straight attacking the accused does not make sense. Why ever was the ladder and the brick on “stand by” at the first floor right outside the entrance door remains highly suspicious. Our client suspects this line of fabricated evidence by the I.O, S.I.O and ASP Ooi Chew Ping, the very “crime scene specialist” is for the purposes of the defence of trespass and self defence by the owner/legal occupier of the building.

23. Why the necessity for the learned DPP Zainal Azwar to have bent backwards to cross examine SP-12 Siti Hadjar (Pegawai Sains, Jabatan Kimia Malaysia) to establish that the deceased is a drug addict, with high drug content in his blood, and that he can be strong and aggressive in that state. The learned DPP had bent backwards to ask that the said Toxicologist’s evidence has always been accepted in the ten (10) times she had testified in Courts and never been disallowed.

24. Another witness named Murugan Ramasamy actually saw the deceased, Juliet, Dass and Yap Ah Boi just before the murder who had told them that they were going to see PW 10 ie Leong Wai Yiaw to collect the money that the deceased had lent “PW-10”.

25. Our client’s wife Madam Rajispry had in fact asked a policeman named Ragu (narcotics) that Dass had told her on 2/12/2010 at about 2.00 p.m that the Chinese gangsters are going to kill her son. Madam Rajispry instructs us that at about 11.00p.m Dass and Yap Ah Boi had called the deceased out for a drink.

26. Juliet Rani who was with the deceased at the time of the murder had made a police report but which is “mysteriously missing”.

27. Despite our client’s police report and our two letters to the learned Selangor State DPP, our client’s (and his wife’s) statement has never been taken up to date and the learned DPP has confirmed that they both would not be called as witnesses.

28. Yap Ah Boy had in fact on 26/1/2012 at about 3.00 p.m at the Kedai Pau, Jalan Pasar, Sg Pelek, when our client was having tea stared at our client and then came over his table and said he had already got one person released and two more to be released and threatened to shoot dead our client if our client further puts pressure or uses his lawyer to do so on the police on the deceased’s case. Our client had on 27/1/12 and met the Deputy OCPD on 30/1/2012 made a confidential police report. A copy of a letter from the OCPD of Sepang dated 4/4/2012 is enclosed herewith as “Appendix 9”.

In the circumstances we humbly request that this case be reopened, reinvestigated and all the relevant statements of our client, his wife, Dass, Juliet Rani, Vishnu, Murugan Nagaratnam, Murugan Ramasamy, Dinesh Letchumanan etc are recorded with the view that Yap Ah Boi the other implicated accused also be prosecuted for the murder of our client’s son. And with no disrespect that another Senior DPP be assigned to prosecute this case.

In the interim kindly forward to us all the relevant documents requested for by us.

Upon receipt of the same and also upon receipt of the Notes of Evidence from the Courts we would have an even clearer picture of this our representation.

We mean no disrespect to your goodselves but our clients pain and grief having lost their loved son expects to see justice being seen to be done without fear or favour.

Kindly revert to us accordingly.

Thank you,

Yours faithfully,

……………………….