1. ) Nagarujun a/l Arjunan 2. ) Devapraghasan a/l Saravanan Public Prosecutor

1. ) Nagarujun a/l Arjunan 2. ) Devapraghasan a/l Saravanan Public Prosecutor

The court held that (1) the statement of the unavailable witness (Exhibit P128) was admissible under s32(1)(i) because the prosecution proved diligent, reasonable efforts to locate him; (2) information supplied by the accused that led distinctly to discovery of incriminating exhibits was admissible under s27; (3) the author of the fingerprint report properly explained and corrected an obvious clerical error in court and the substantive fingerprint evidence stood; (4) the alibi notice lacked particulars and corroboration and did not raise reasonable doubt; and (5) the cumulative weight of forensic (DNA), fingerprint, circumstantial and corroborative witness evidence established guilt and...

Citation
A(05)M-490-10/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Devapraghasan a/l Saravanan; Appellant: Nagarujun a/l Arjunan; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
05
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 August 2021
Case Number
A(05)M-490-10/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Murder (section 302 Penal Code), Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code), Hearsay Exception (section 32 Evidence Act 1950), Discovery Information (section 27 Evidence Act 1950), Alibi Procedure (section 402 a Cpc), Fingerprint and Documentary Corrections (sections 91, 92 Evidence Act 1950), Child Sentencing (child Act 2001 S97), Corrective Report (section 399 Cpc)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Science Child Law Procedural Law Murder (section 302 Penal Code) Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code) Hearsay Exception (section 32 Evidence Act 1950) +5 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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devapraghasan a/l Saravanan

Appellant

Nagarujun a/l Arjunan

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of extrajudicial statement of unavailable witness under s32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950
  2. 2 Admissibility of information given by accused under s27 Evidence Act 1950 leading to discovery of exhibits
  3. 3 Failure to investigate alibi notice and sufficiency of alibi evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that (1) the statement of the unavailable witness (Exhibit P128) was admissible under s32(1)(i) because the prosecution proved diligent, reasonable efforts to locate him; (2) information supplied by the accused that led distinctly to discovery of incriminating exhibits was admissible under s27; (3) the author of the fingerprint report properly explained and corrected an obvious clerical error in court and the substantive fingerprint evidence stood; (4) the alibi notice lacked particulars and corroboration and did not raise reasonable doubt; and (5) the cumulative weight of forensic (DNA), fingerprint, circumstantial and corroborative witness evidence established guilt and...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Criminal Appeal No. A-05(M)-490-10/2018 and A-05(SH)-514-11/2019 dismissed
  • Convictions of Devapraghasan a/l Saravanan and Nagarujun a/l Arjunan for murder (Section 302 Penal Code read with s34) affirmed