[ ] MAZAURI ALAGAN A/L MAUNIASAMY

[ ] MAZAURI ALAGAN A/L MAUNIASAMY

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against Accused 2 and Accused 3 because there was no evidence linking them to the acts that caused the victim's fatal injuries and no proof of a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds establishing common intention under s.34; mere presence was insufficient; accordingly Accused 2 and Accused 3 were properly discharged at the close of the prosecution under s.180 CJA.

Citation
BA-45B-33-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Shaamu a/l Rajan; Accused: Shasikumar a/l Kunasegaran; Accused: Mazauri Alagan a/l Mauniasamy; Accused: Jegathisan a/l Sithambaran
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 September 2022
Case Number
BA-45B-33-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / End of Prosecution Case (discharge of Accused 2 and 3)
Outcome
Accused 2 (Shasikumar a/l Kunasegaran) and Accused 3 (Mazauri Alagan a/l Mauniasamy) discharged and released; not called to enter defence.
Legal Topics
Murder (s.302 Penal Code), Culpable Homicide (s.299 Penal Code), Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code), Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution (s.180 Cja), Discharge Not Called to Answer
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Homicide Criminal Procedure Murder (s.302 Penal Code) Culpable Homicide (s.299 Penal Code) Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code) Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution (s.180 Cja) Discharge Not Called to Answer

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Shaamu a/l Rajan

Accused

Shasikumar a/l Kunasegaran

Accused

Mazauri Alagan a/l Mauniasamy

Accused

Jegathisan a/l Sithambaran

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / End of Prosecution Case (discharge of Accused 2 and 3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against Accused 2 and 3 for murder under s.302 read with s.34 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether Accused 2 and 3 participated in a common intention or pre-arranged plan with Accused 1 and 4 to cause the victim's death
  3. 3 Whether evidence links Accused 2 and 3 to the acts causing the fatal injuries and causation of death

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against Accused 2 and Accused 3 because there was no evidence linking them to the acts that caused the victim's fatal injuries and no proof of a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds establishing common intention under s.34; mere presence was insufficient; accordingly Accused 2 and Accused 3 were properly discharged at the close of the prosecution under s.180 CJA.

Court Disposition

Accused 2 (Shasikumar a/l Kunasegaran) and Accused 3 (Mazauri Alagan a/l Mauniasamy) discharged and released; not called to enter defence.

Orders

  • Accused 2 and Accused 3 are discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution (not called to enter defence)
  • Prosecution filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal dated 29.9.2022