DARVINRAJ A/L SUBRAMANIAM

DARVINRAJ A/L SUBRAMANIAM

The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offences and did not establish a prima facie case: there was no evidence of intention to murder (accused stated he would shoot himself), no direct evidence that the accused discharged the pistol, absence of gunshot residue linking accused to the firing, inconsistencies between witness accounts and medical evidence regarding injuries, and no evidence of telephone threats; accordingly the accused was acquitted and discharged without calling defence.

Citation
AA-61-3-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Darvinraj a/l Subramaniam
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 May 2024
Case Number
AA-61-3-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal by Prosecution Against Acquittal and Discharge (post‑prosecution)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged of all seven charges
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder (s307 Penal Code), Voluntarily Causing Hurt (s324 Penal Code), Mischief to Animal (s428 Penal Code), Discharging Firearm (s39 Arms Act 1960), Criminal Intimidation (s506 Penal Code), Prima Facie Case / Acquittal and Discharge
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Weapons/arms Law Attempted Murder (s307 Penal Code) Voluntarily Causing Hurt (s324 Penal Code) Mischief to Animal (s428 Penal Code) Discharging Firearm (s39 Arms Act 1960) Criminal Intimidation (s506 Penal Code) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Darvinraj a/l Subramaniam

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal by Prosecution Against Acquittal and Discharge (post‑prosecution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved intention/knowledge necessary for attempted murder under s307
  2. 2 Whether accused was proven to have discharged the pistol (identity of shooter)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved hurt caused by instrument for shooting under s324

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offences and did not establish a prima facie case: there was no evidence of intention to murder (accused stated he would shoot himself), no direct evidence that the accused discharged the pistol, absence of gunshot residue linking accused to the firing, inconsistencies between witness accounts and medical evidence regarding injuries, and no evidence of telephone threats; accordingly the accused was acquitted and discharged without calling defence.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged of all seven charges

Orders

  • Accused acquitted and discharged of charges AA-61-3-08/2020, AA-61-4-08/2020, AA-61-5-08/2020, AA-82-10-08/2020, AA-82-11-08/2020, AA-82-14-08/2020 and AA-82-15-11/2023
  • No order to call accused to enter defence