1. ) XXXX 2. ) DINESWARAN A/L SIVALINGAM [ ]

1. ) XXXX 2. ) DINESWARAN A/L SIVALINGAM [ ]

The Court allowed the appeal in part: it accepted the prosecution's representation to reduce the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (conviction entered under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34), set aside the death sentences and substituted each with a custodial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
W-05(M)-98-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Nagarajan a/l Alagasan; Appellant: Vikneswaran a/l Kalimuthu; Appellant: Dineswaran a/l Sivalingam; Appellant: Logan a/l Namasivayam; Appellant: Khantan a/l Namasivayam; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 September 2025
Case Number
W-05(M)-98-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Sentencing Stage After Prosecution Accepted Representation to Reduce Murder Charge and Appellants Pleaded Guilty to Amended Charge
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; death sentences set aside and convictions substituted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) read with section 34; custodial sentences imposed
Legal Topics
Murder, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, Common Intention, Sentence Substitution on Appeal, Section 302 Penal Code, Section 304(a) Penal Code, Section 34 Penal Code
Criminal Law Homicide Sentencing Murder Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder Common Intention Sentence Substitution on Appeal Section 302 Penal Code +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nagarajan a/l Alagasan

Appellant

Vikneswaran a/l Kalimuthu

Appellant

Dineswaran a/l Sivalingam

Appellant

Logan a/l Namasivayam

Appellant

Khantan a/l Namasivayam

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Sentencing Stage After Prosecution Accepted Representation to Reduce Murder Charge and Appellants Pleaded Guilty to Amended Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentences should be maintained after the prosecution accepted representation to reduce the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for convictions under section 304(a) read with section 34 given the facts and mitigation
  3. 3 Application of common intention (section 34) to multiple participants in the assault leading to death

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal in part: it accepted the prosecution's representation to reduce the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (conviction entered under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34), set aside the death sentences and substituted each with a custodial sentence of twelve years' imprisonment backdated to date of arrest (17 August 2017) after considering the facts, public interest, mitigation and current sentencing trends.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; death sentences set aside and convictions substituted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) read with section 34; custodial sentences imposed

Orders

  • Death sentences set aside
  • Convictions entered under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34 Penal Code