G Sara Lily, a witness who faced the prospect of impeachment for allegedly making conflicting statements, obtained a reprieve during a judicial inquest to determine the identity of a body found in the Klang River.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Ishak Mohd Yusoff, representing the Attorney-General's Chambers, said today that he would not pursue this course of action.

He told Kuala Lumpur magistrate Nazran Mohd Sham - who is acting as coroner that he would instead ask Sara Lily "to clarify the discrepancies" between her testimony in court and statements made under section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
The application to impeach Sara Lily was made by DPP Faizah Mohd Salleh three weeks ago under section 155(c) of the Evidence Act 1950. Faizah did not specify which of Sara Lily's statements were deemed contradictory.

Tomorrow, Nazran will rule whether there are contradictions in Sara Lily's statements and whether she needs to provide a clarification.

Sara Lily, the final witness, has long insisted that the body is that of her son, G Francis Udayappan. She has alleged that Brickfields police beat him to death and threw his body into the river.

The police have denied this and maintained that Francis, 24, had escaped from custody by jumping into the river on April 16, 2004, while being questioned in relation to alleged petty theft.

DNA tests conducted with samples provided by Francis' parents have failed to prove a match with a bone marrow sample from the body, which lies unclaimed in the Universiti Malaya medical centre morgue.

Pressing issues

There is now the possibility that the already protracted inquest may be further lengthened, as Sara Lily's lawyer M Puravelan has raised several issues to be ironed out first.

Among these are whether the DPP is empowered to point out 'discrepancies' between the statements and testimony of a witness.

"It is up to the coroner to seek clarification over inconsistencies. It is not up to the officers who are assisting the coroner," said Puravelan.

He also noted that the court has yet to be told under which section of the CPC the inquest is being heard.

This would, in turn, determine the nature, direction, and progression of the rest of the proceedings, said Puravelan.

While inquests under section 335 pertain to those initiated by a magistrate who conducts the inquest, those under Section 339 are initiated by the public prosecutor who directs the magistrate to hold an inquiry.

Puravelan also asked the court to rule whether or not Sara Lily's lawyers have access to her section 112 statements. In criminal proceedings, these are usually available only to the prosecutor and judge.

He said this is in view of the fact that her testimony is allegedly in contradiction with her statements given to the police during investigations.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had earlier allowed Puravalen's appeal to examine witnesses and any evidence tendered. However, he has had difficulty accessing documents like witness statements due to the insistence of the DPP that these were 'privileged documents.'

Nazran had always deferred on deciding on giving the counsel access to the statements.

Today, Nazran said Puravalen could not have access to the section 112 statements.

He also declared that the inquest is being held under section 339, since instructions in the form of a letter had been received from the AG's Chambers directing the coroner to do so.

Puravelan responded by saying he would refer the issue of access to the statements to the Kuala Lumpur High Court for a judicial review.