Mahesh Gole Tamang (Nepal)

Mahesh Gole Tamang (Nepal)

The court held the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case: the CCTV recordings relied upon were inadmissible because s.90A Evidence Act conditions and authentication were not met and the prosecution could not establish chain of custody; further the failure to call the material witness Prem and investigative lapses created critical gaps. On maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence a conviction could not be warranted and therefore no prima facie case existed; the accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
BA-45B-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mahesh Gole Tamang
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 January 2025
Case Number
BA-45B-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder / Close of Prosecution Case Prima Facie Determination Under S.180 CPC
Outcome
Acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case; no prima facie case established
Legal Topics
Murder (s.302 Penal Code), Definition of Murder (s.300 Penal Code), Prima Facie Case and Burden of Proof (s.180 Criminal Procedure Code), Admissibility of Computer Generated Evidence (s.90 a Evidence Act 1950), Investigative Duties and Witness Production
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Murder (s.302 Penal Code) Definition of Murder (s.300 Penal Code) Prima Facie Case and Burden of Proof (s.180 Criminal Procedure Code) Admissibility of Computer Generated Evidence (s.90 a Evidence Act 1950) Investigative Duties and Witness Production

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Mahesh Gole Tamang

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder / Close of Prosecution Case Prima Facie Determination Under S.180 CPC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of murder under section 300(d) read with section 302 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether CCTV recordings (ID17(a) and ID17(b)) were admissible absent compliance with s.90A Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether failure to call a material witness (Prem) and investigative lapses fatally undermined the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case: the CCTV recordings relied upon were inadmissible because s.90A Evidence Act conditions and authentication were not met and the prosecution could not establish chain of custody; further the failure to call the material witness Prem and investigative lapses created critical gaps. On maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence a conviction could not be warranted and therefore no prima facie case existed; the accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case; no prima facie case established

Orders

  • Acquit and discharge the accused under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code
  • ID17(a) and ID17(b) CCTV recordings rejected and not admitted into evidence