DAVENDRAN A/L BALA SUPRAMANIAM [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

DAVENDRAN A/L BALA SUPRAMANIAM [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Appeal allowed in part. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge failed to engage adequately with s.299 and the lesser offence alternative; on reappraisal of the totality of evidence (eyewitness identification, circumstantial evidence, and post-mortem showing extensive blunt-force injuries) the facts supported conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(a) rather than murder under s.302. The convictions under s.302 and death sentences were quashed and substituted with guilty verdicts under s.304(a) and specified prison terms were imposed.

Citation
W-05(M)-381-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Neelamegan a/l Kumar; Appellant: Davendran a/l Bala Supramaniam; Appellant: Hurisudhan a/l Peramal; Respondent (public Prosecutor): Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Case Number
W-05(M)-381-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions substituted and sentences varied
Legal Topics
Murder, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, Common Intention, Identification Parade, Post Mortem Evidence, Sentence Variation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Appellate Review Murder Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder Common Intention Identification Parade Post Mortem Evidence +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neelamegan a/l Kumar

Appellant

Davendran a/l Bala Supramaniam

Appellant

Hurisudhan a/l Peramal

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent (public Prosecutor)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in convicting appellants of murder under s.302 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death
  3. 3 Whether there was common intention under s.34 Penal Code to justify conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed in part. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge failed to engage adequately with s.299 and the lesser offence alternative; on reappraisal of the totality of evidence (eyewitness identification, circumstantial evidence, and post-mortem showing extensive blunt-force injuries) the facts supported conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(a) rather than murder under s.302. The convictions under s.302 and death sentences were quashed and substituted with guilty verdicts under s.304(a) and specified prison terms were imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions substituted and sentences varied

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Sabitan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan hukuman gantung sampai mati diketepikan