Murugan A/l Perumal [ ]

Murugan A/l Perumal [ ]

The Court held that prosecution proved murder under section 302 read with section 34 via clause (c) of section 300: the 2nd appellant intentionally inflicted injuries (smothering) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and the 1st appellant shared the common intention as inferred from CCTV, seizure of looted items, conduct (removal of CCTV decoder, disposal of items), joint flight and admissionary acts; circumstantial evidence cumulatively excluded reasonable alternative hypotheses; therefore conviction and mandatory death sentences were upheld.

Citation
A-05(M)-180-06/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Kagatree a/p Pechi; Appellant: Murugan a/l Perumal; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 November 2022
Case Number
A-05(M)-180-06/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Murder (s.302 Penal Code), Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code), Clause (c) of S.300 Penal Code, Circumstantial Evidence, Last Seen Together Doctrine, Unsworn Statement From the Dock
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Appellate Review Forensic Pathology Murder (s.302 Penal Code) Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code) Clause (c) of S.300 Penal Code Circumstantial Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kagatree a/p Pechi

Appellant

Murugan a/l Perumal

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved common intention between appellants to commit murder
  2. 2 Whether doctrine of 'last seen together' was correctly applied
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that prosecution proved murder under section 302 read with section 34 via clause (c) of section 300: the 2nd appellant intentionally inflicted injuries (smothering) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and the 1st appellant shared the common intention as inferred from CCTV, seizure of looted items, conduct (removal of CCTV decoder, disposal of items), joint flight and admissionary acts; circumstantial evidence cumulatively excluded reasonable alternative hypotheses; therefore conviction and mandatory death sentences were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder under section 302 Penal Code read with section 34 affirmed; mandatory death sentence upheld