AIMAN BIN MAZLAN [ ]

AIMAN BIN MAZLAN [ ]

Convictions under Section 302 Penal Code were unsafe because the prosecution evidence as to identity was riddled with contradictions and the trial judge misdirected by inferring common intention from mere presence and by calling the accused to enter defence on unreliable identification; therefore convictions set aside and appellants acquitted.

Citation
M-05(M)-382-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Narendranpathy A/L Pathy; Appellant: Aiman bin Mazlan; Appellant: Namasivayam A/L M. Perumal; Appellant: Sethupathi A/L Pathi; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Case Number
M-05(M)-382-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions set aside; appellants acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Murder (section 302 Penal Code), Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code), Identification Evidence, Trial Judge Misdirection, S.182 a Criminal Procedure Code Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Murder (section 302 Penal Code) Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code) Identification Evidence Trial Judge Misdirection S.182 a Criminal Procedure Code Compliance

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narendranpathy A/L Pathy

Appellant

Aiman bin Mazlan

Appellant

Namasivayam A/L M. Perumal

Appellant

Sethupathi A/L Pathi

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved positive identification of appellants as assailants
  2. 2 Whether there was proof of common intention under Section 34 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in calling the accused to enter defence despite contradictions in prosecution evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions under Section 302 Penal Code were unsafe because the prosecution evidence as to identity was riddled with contradictions and the trial judge misdirected by inferring common intention from mere presence and by calling the accused to enter defence on unreliable identification; therefore convictions set aside and appellants acquitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions set aside; appellants acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Convictions under Section 302 Penal Code set aside