The cause of S.Vinosiny’s death, a Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) student, remains a mystery.
Recent reports by Malaysiakini have reported that family lawyer, M.Manoharan said, the commission in the report has stated that Vinosiny did not die of electrocution.
The police confirmed the same, citing the post-mortem report on the deceased. The inquest into Vinosiny’s death was carried out without the family’s knowledge, leading to doubts about the official version of events.
Manoharan questioned why the police and the public prosecutor’s office were refusing to disclose relevant documents to him as the family’s solicitor. He alleged that the police and UUM were trying to deny the family justice in the matter. The lawyer called for huge general, aggravated, and exemplary damages against the police, UUM, the AG’s Chambers, and the pathologist involved.
Manoharan also expressed his disappointment at the coroner’s decision without a proper hearing and not calling parties to assist in determining the cause of death. He also noted that all kinds of contradictory expert reports have emerged, leaving them uncertain about who is telling the truth and who is lying.
The case of Vinosiny’s death remains ongoing, and the lack of clarity has left her family searching for answers.
The failure to provide transparency and accountability from relevant authorities has raised concerns about the justice system’s efficacy and fairness.
