Zubeen Garg death ruled accidental drowning by Singapore court; Gaurav Gogoi raises questions

In a significant development in the death case of Assamese musical icon Zubeen Garg, a Singapore coroner’s court has ruled that the singer died due to accidental drowning, even as investigations in Assam had earlier treated the case as a suspected murder.

According to a report by The Straits Times, State Coroner Adam Nakhoda, while delivering his findings on March 25, said there was no reason to disagree with the Police Coast Guard’s conclusion after examining all evidence. A death certificate issued by Singapore General Hospital listed the cause of death as drowning.

The report stated that Zubeen Garg had consumed alcohol and refused to wear a life vest before entering the water near Lazarus Island on September 19, 2025. Testimony revealed that despite efforts by friends to persuade him, he went for a second swim without a life jacket and appeared visibly exhausted.

Video evidence reviewed during the inquiry showed that his swimming strokes resembled “doggy paddling,” suggesting fatigue. The court concluded that he likely lost consciousness in the water, leading to drowning. The coroner also noted that there was no evidence of foul play, no delay in rescue efforts, and no indication that anyone held him underwater.

The incident occurred during a yacht trip that departed from Marina at Keppel Bay. Witnesses, including the vessel’s captain, testified that the singer appeared unsteady even before boarding, and required assistance moving around.

Zubeen’s death had triggered widespread outrage in Assam, where protests erupted and police registered a murder case, leading to the arrest of several individuals, including festival organiser Shyamkanu Mahanta and his associates.

Gogoi questions verdict, flags contradictions

Reacting to the Singapore court’s ruling, Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Gaurav Gogoi expressed strong anguish and raised serious concerns over contradictions between the findings in Singapore and the stance taken by the Assam government.

Addressing a press conference in Khanapara, Gogoi said that after September 19, both the Government of India and the Government of Singapore had entered into a special legal arrangement to investigate the circumstances of Zubeen Garg’s death, ensuring coordination and exchange of information.

He pointed out that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted under Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had travelled to Singapore, and there were expectations of cooperation with Singapore Police and authorities.

“We heard the Chief Minister state in the Assembly that Zubeen Garg was murdered. However, the Singapore investigation has concluded it was a natural death, and today’s verdict is based on that,” Gogoi said, highlighting the contradiction.

Gogoi further stated that the verdict has raised more questions than answers. Despite discussions between governments and investigations at locations linked to the incident, the conclusions differ sharply, leaving the public confused.

He also alleged that the ruling effectively benefits the main accused, including Shyamkanu Mahanta and Siddhartha Sharma, by providing them legal relief.

“People of Assam are now confused. The Singapore government says one thing, while the Assam government says another,” he said, questioning the coordination between the two sides.

Taking a political swipe, Gogoi reminded that Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had earlier said that if justice was not delivered before the Assembly elections, people should not vote for the BJP. “Does he remember that statement today?” Gogoi asked.

He further alleged that people are finding it difficult to trust the investigation process and accused the ruling party of attempting to deflect attention. “We never expected such a verdict. Like us, many people are finding it hard to believe,” he added.

The contrasting conclusions between Singapore’s judicial findings and the ongoing investigation in Assam have now intensified public debate, raising critical questions about jurisdiction, evidence-sharing, and the pursuit of justice in high-profile cross-border cases.