[ ] 1. ) CHONG AH KEONG 2. ) XXXX

[ ] 1. ) CHONG AH KEONG 2. ) XXXX

The prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case of murder against both accused under section 180 CPC because critical evidence was inadmissible or missing: CCTV recordings from a third-party property were not admitted under s90A Evidence Act and the prosecution failed to call material witnesses (CCTV owner, deceased's father, initial investigating officer) leaving gaps in the chain of evidence; although jewellery was proven to be in the accusedes' possession, the circumstantial proof did not irresistibly and conclusively establish that both accused in furtherance of a common intention caused the victim's death, therefore accused were acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) CPC.

Citation
AA-45B-11-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Chong Ah Keong; Accused: Emmanuel Raj A/L Thanga Raj
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Case Number
AA-45B-11-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder / End of Prosecution's Case Ruling on Prima Facie Case (section 180 Cpc)
Outcome
Accused 1 and Accused 2 acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Topics
Murder, Prima Facie Standard, Circumstantial Evidence, Adverse Inference for Non Production of Witnesses, Cctv/computer Produced Evidence (s90 a Evidence Act), Amendment of Charge
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Forensic Pathology Murder Prima Facie Standard Circumstantial Evidence Adverse Inference for Non Production of Witnesses Cctv/computer Produced Evidence (s90 a Evidence Act) +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Chong Ah Keong

Accused

Emmanuel Raj A/L Thanga Raj

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder / End of Prosecution's Case Ruling on Prima Facie Case (section 180 Cpc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution had adduced a prima facie case of murder against both accused
  2. 2 Admissibility of CCTV recordings obtained from third party property under section 90A Evidence Act
  3. 3 Effect of non-production of material witnesses (owner of CCTV, deceased's father, initial investigating officer) and whether adverse inference arises

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case of murder against both accused under section 180 CPC because critical evidence was inadmissible or missing: CCTV recordings from a third-party property were not admitted under s90A Evidence Act and the prosecution failed to call material witnesses (CCTV owner, deceased's father, initial investigating officer) leaving gaps in the chain of evidence; although jewellery was proven to be in the accusedes' possession, the circumstantial proof did not irresistibly and conclusively establish that both accused in furtherance of a common intention caused the victim's death, therefore accused were acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) CPC.

Court Disposition

Accused 1 and Accused 2 acquitted and discharged under section 180(2) Criminal Procedure Code

Orders

  • Amendment to time in charge allowed to 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM (amended charge P85)
  • No prima facie case found against both accused; ordered acquittal and discharge pursuant to section 180(2) CPC