[Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri] 1. ) Gharti Magar Aaditya 2. ) Thapa Magar Lila Dhar

[Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri] 1. ) Gharti Magar Aaditya 2. ) Thapa Magar Lila Dhar

Court affirmed an 8‑year custodial sentence because the facts supported conviction under s.304(a) without intent to kill, significant mitigating factors (guilty plea, provocation/self‑defence, intoxication, first‑offender status, prolonged remand and clean antecedents) outweighed the prosecution's request for a heavier sentence and an 8‑year term was proportionate, lawful and sufficient to serve public interest while permitting eventual deportation.

Citation
PB-45B-4-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Gharti Magar Aaditya (No. Pasport: 10116350); Accused: Thapa Magar Lila Dhar (No. Pasport: 05706089)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Case Number
PB-45B-4-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Homicide / Appeal Against Sentence by Prosecution (post‑conviction Sentencing Review)
Outcome
Prosecution's appeals against sentence dismissed; original sentence of 8 years' imprisonment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Section 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (penal Code), Section 34 Kanun Keseksaan (common Intention), Mitigation and Aggravation, Guilty Plea, Provocation and Self‑defence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sentencing Evidence Section 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (penal Code) Section 34 Kanun Keseksaan (common Intention) Mitigation and Aggravation Guilty Plea Provocation and Self‑defence

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Gharti Magar Aaditya (No. Pasport: 10116350)

Accused

Thapa Magar Lila Dhar (No. Pasport: 05706089)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Homicide / Appeal Against Sentence by Prosecution (post‑conviction Sentencing Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 8‑year sentence was inadequate and should be increased
  2. 2 Weight to be given to late guilty pleas after substantial prosecution evidence
  3. 3 Effect of provocation, intoxication and self‑defence on culpability under s.304(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Court affirmed an 8‑year custodial sentence because the facts supported conviction under s.304(a) without intent to kill, significant mitigating factors (guilty plea, provocation/self‑defence, intoxication, first‑offender status, prolonged remand and clean antecedents) outweighed the prosecution's request for a heavier sentence and an 8‑year term was proportionate, lawful and sufficient to serve public interest while permitting eventual deportation.

Court Disposition

Prosecution's appeals against sentence dismissed; original sentence of 8 years' imprisonment affirmed.

Orders

  • Prosecution's Notices of Appeal against sentence dismissed.
  • Each accused (Gharti Magar Aaditya and Thapa Magar Lila Dhar) is sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment commencing from date of arrest on 4 October 2020.