Kota Kinabalu: The Coroner’s Court heard that there was a possibility Zara Qairina Mahathir might have survived, if the impact to the head had not occurred or could have been avoided.
Datuk Seri Dr. Bhupinder Singh Jeswant Singh said if the head or neck of the deceased have not hit the edge of the drain, she would survived.
“Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that if she had fallen down straight like she has and not hit back of the head, God willing she would have survived,” he said in agreeing with a question by counsel Datuk Ram Singh.
He also told the court that it was possible for the individual to climb onto the railing, hold on to the bar which was a loose bar, swinging bar, and either the person could even sit on the railing itself and or hold on to the bar.
Dr Bhupinder further said assessing from the position of the place from where the deceased was found, how the deceased was found, and the injuries sustained by the deceased, in his opinion that the person was standing.
“Because if she was sitting, she would have gone forward and that would have had a topple fall. But in this particular case, the person would have been standing and would have fallen down straight down.
“If you are looking at injuries, the fractures on the hand, because what we call these fractures of the wrist, dislocation of the wrist, and the fracture of the radius bone is as a result. We call it the Colles’ fracture,” he said.
Dr Bhupinder further testified that the cause of death in this case was the person died of the head injury and the complications arising from the head injury adding that, but that was as a result of the fall from height.
To a question from Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Fairuz Johari, Dr Bhupinder said the severe traumatic brain injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
He explained that if the trauma was not that severe, then there are patients who survive, but in this case, the hypoxic encephalopathy developed by the individual was so severe that she couldn’t be revived.
He also agreed with Fairuz that the injuries sustained by the deceased be considered life-threatening immediately on impact especially the head injury adding that the head injuries consistent with a secondary impact after the initial landing.
Dr Bhupinder also testified that based on the pattern of injuries, there was no indication of a struggle or defensive injuries and also he did not find any injury suggestive of physical assault prior to the fall.
He also told the court that there was no sign of restraint, gripping, or defensive wounds on the body and agreed that toxicology findings do not suggest foul playDr Bhupinder also agreed with Fairuz that there would some form of intentional action, for example, climbing, be required to cross the railing.
According to him, taking into account all findings such as injuries, scene, and medical evidence, there was no indication to show any struggle, no indication for anyone to even hold the person and throw the person across.
He added that the most likely scenario in this particular case would be the deceased would have to cross over the railings and then hold onto the the swingy bar on top and then would have come down straight onto the ground.
