TEVAGAR A/L THURAISINGAM

TEVAGAR A/L THURAISINGAM

The Court accepted SP11 as a credible eyewitness and found her evidence, read with admissions and evidence of Mohanraj and forensic findings, sufficiently established appellant's role; the failure to call the named witnesses was not material to create reasonable doubt; self-induced intoxication did not negate intent. Therefore conviction and sentence were lawful and must be upheld.

Citation
B-05(SH)-585-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Tevagar a/l Thuraisingam; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Co Accused/co Appellant: Mohanraj a/l Murugan
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-585-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Court of Appeal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of High Court upheld.
Legal Topics
Murder, Intention/mens Rea Under S300(c), Joint Liability Under S34, Intoxication Defence, Eyewitness Credibility, Failure to Call Witnesses, Forensic/dna Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Murder Intention/mens Rea Under S300(c) Joint Liability Under S34 Intoxication Defence Eyewitness Credibility +2 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tevagar a/l Thuraisingam

Appellant/perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Mohanraj a/l Murugan

Co Accused/co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Court of Appeal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a prima facie case at the end of prosecution case
  2. 2 Credibility and reliability of the sole eyewitness (SP11)
  3. 3 Whether failure to call identified witnesses prejudiced the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted SP11 as a credible eyewitness and found her evidence, read with admissions and evidence of Mohanraj and forensic findings, sufficiently established appellant's role; the failure to call the named witnesses was not material to create reasonable doubt; self-induced intoxication did not negate intent. Therefore conviction and sentence were lawful and must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of High Court upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 302 Kanun Keseksaan and sentence of 35 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the rotan upheld