LOGAN A/L NAMASIVAYAM [ ]

LOGAN A/L NAMASIVAYAM [ ]

The Court accepted the prosecution's representation to reduce the charge, found that mitigation and public interest justified substituting the death sentences with convictions under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34, and imposed concurrent sentences of twelve years' imprisonment from the date of arrest (17 August 2017).

Citation
W-05(M)-116-03/2022 (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)-116-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction on Reduced Charge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; original death sentences set aside and convictions substituted with offences under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34 of the Penal Code; sentences of 12 years' imprisonment each ordered from 17 August 2017.
Legal Topics
Murder, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, Sentence Reduction, Section 302 Penal Code, Section 304(a) Penal Code, Section 34 Penal Code, Section 299 Penal Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Homicide Sentencing Murder Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder Sentence Reduction Section 302 Penal Code Section 304(a) Penal Code +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 Sentence After Conviction on Reduced Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentences should be upheld or substituted following the prosecution's representation to reduce the charge
  2. 2 Appropriate conviction and sentence having regard to facts, mitigation and public interest following reduction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  3. 3 Application of sentencing principles, parity and prevailing sentencing trends in homicide cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted the prosecution's representation to reduce the charge, found that mitigation and public interest justified substituting the death sentences with convictions under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34, and imposed concurrent sentences of twelve years' imprisonment from the date of arrest (17 August 2017).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; original death sentences set aside and convictions substituted with offences under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34 of the Penal Code; sentences of 12 years' imprisonment each ordered from 17 August 2017.

Orders

  • Death sentences set aside for all five appellants
  • Convictions substituted under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34 Penal Code