KOKULAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

NA-62-81-12/2021 Kand. 80 06/01/2026 16:11:47 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS (BIDANG KUASA JENAYAH) NO KES: NA-62-81-12/2021 ANTARA KOKULAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM ...PERAYU LAWAN PENDAKWARAYA ...RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN The accused is charged as follows: Pertuduhan Pindaan “Bahawa kamu pada 17/12/2021 jam lebih kurang 1058 malam di hadapan Kedai Gunting Rambut Kokulan Hair Style Pekan Nilai, Daerah Nilai dalam Negeri Sembilan dengan sengaja menyebabkan cedera parah kepada seorang lelaki bernama Mahalingam a/l Maruthamuthu Nadaraja, Nombor kad Pengenalan 860712-05-5203 1 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dengan menetaknya dengan menggunakan senjata parang iaitu satu senjata yang boleh menyebabkan kematian jika digunakan sebagai senjata salah. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 323 dibaca bersama Seksyen 326 Kanun Keseksaan” The accused claims trial. The Prosecution case The Prosecution called seven witnesses to prove its case. They were: PW1 – Photographer PW2 – Arresting Officer PW3 – Dhenukar (daughter of PW5) PW4 – Doctor PW5 – Malarveli (accused’s sister) PW6 – Mahalingam (complainant) PW7 – Investigation Officer Brief facts On 17.12.2021 approximately 10.58 pm, PW3 and PW6 accompanied PW5 to see the accused at his barber shop. The accused is the younger brother of PW5. PW5 wanted to see the accused to ask money that the accused borrowed from PW5. When they reached accused’s shop, they saw the accused was sitting on a chair in front of the shop. PW5 confronted the accused 2 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal about the money. A heated argument ensued between both of them. The accused then took a parang from his shop. PW6 intervened and told PW3 and PW5 to run to safety. Both of them ran away. The accused then attacked PW6 using the parang. PW6 defended himself but injured his right hand in the process. PW6 ran away from the scene. PW6 was covered in blood. He managed to meet up with PW3 and PW5. They covered his right hand with a piece of cloth and took PW6 to the hospital. At the hospital, PW4 attended to PW6’s injuries. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution needs to show the existence of three elements namely; 1. The victim suffered grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of Penal Code. 2. The accused causes the grievous hurt with intention. 3. The accused uses the alleged weapon which causes the grievous hurt. Element No. 1 According to PW6, when he saw the accused took a parang from the shop, he asked PW3 and PW5 to run away. The accused then attacked PW6 with the parang. PW6 defended himself with a garbage bin but the parang struck his right hand. PW6 then ran away from the attack and met with PW3 and PW5. They took him to the hospital to get treatment. At the hospital, PW4 treated PW6. PW6 produced a medical report (P6) which listed the injuries as follow; 3 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal i. Open right 4th metacarpal bone fracture with extensor digitorum cut; ii. Open right middle finger middle phalanx fracture with extensor digitorum cut; and iii. Laceration wound at left calf and right elbow. According to PW4, the injuries on the right hand was caused by being struck by a sharp object. However, the said parang was never found by the police. It is my considered view that the absence of parang does not jeopardized the Prosecution’s case because the medical report by PW4 is sufficient to prove the nature of injuries suffered by PW6. PW4 is an independent witness and his evidence is supported by a contemporaneous document. I wholly accept PW4’s evidence and found the injury suffered falls under the definition of grievous hurt of Section 320. Element No. 2 The next question is whether the accused caused the grievous hurt intentionally. The fact about the argument between PW5 and the accused is not disputed. Then, the accused took a parang from his shop and wanted to attack PW5. Fearing the safety of PW3 and PW5, PW6 instructed them to run away. The accused turn his attention to PW6 and attacked him with the parang. PW3 and PW5 did not witness the attack on PW6. However, they met PW6 bloodied from the attack and sent him to hospital. PW6 was treated at the hospital by PW4. 4 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The chain of events leading to the injuries sustained by PW6 pointed to the accused as the person who caused it. That is the only logical inference. Although PW3 and PW5 are interested witnesses, this court has no reason to reject the evidence of PW3 and PW5 because there is no other way PW6 can sustained the injuries. This court found the accused intentionally attacked PW6 with a parang and this fact is supported by the medical report of PW4. PW6’s evidence is credible and is accepted by this court. Element No. 3 The parang that was used by the accused to attack PW6 was never found. To prove the offence under Section 320 of Penal Code, the Prosecution must show that PW6 was injured with a parang by accused. As founded earlier, this court accepted this evidence of PW3, PW5 and PW6. The accused had attacked PW6 with a parang and which caused grievous hurt as per the medical report by PW4. There was no other person that can caused the injuries except the accused. As such, this court is of the view that the absence of the parang does not nullify the fact that a parang was used to cause grievous hurt on PW6. This court has applied maximum evaluation on all evidence above and found the Prosecution has established prima facie case against the accused. Hence, defence case is called. The usual three choices were given to the accused and the accused elected to give sworn evidence from the witness stand. 5 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The accused is DW1. According to the accused, he was at his barber shop when PW3, PW5 and PW6 came by car. They came to ask money he owed to PW5. An argument started between them. The accused main gripe against PW5 which is his elder sister is about her relationship with PW6. PW6 is a man younger then PW5 and is staying in with PW5 and PW3. This causes concern among their relatives. Although this fact looks immoral among the relatives, PW5 double down and told people around her that she treated PW6 as her younger brother. Naturally the accused kept a grudge against PW6 on this contemptuous issue. The accused testified that during the argument, PW6 took a parang from the car and attacked him. The accused defended himself which caused PW6 fell and injured himself with the parang. DW2 who was at the scene of the incident corroborated the accused’s version. DW2 told this court that he saw an argument broke between PW3, PW5, PW6 and the accused. PW6 then took a parang from the car and attacked the accused. The accused thwarted the attack which caused PW6 to fall on the parang and injured himself. The Defense closes its case after calling two witnesses. At this stage, this court needs to evaluate whether the evidence presented by the Defence could be accepted. If it is accepted, the Prosecution case against the accused collapses. The accused version on the incident is supported by the testimony of DW2. There is no doubt in my mind that DW2 is an interested witness. Evidence has been adduced in court that DW2 who is the son of PW5 disapproved the relationship between PW5 6 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal and PW6. DW2 was called by the accused to the barber shop to confront PW6 when the incident happened. Be that as it may, this court is dutiful to look for independent evidence that can lend credence to the Defence’s version. This evidence that can be found from PW4, and the report he prepared. According to PW4, he had treated PW6 and concluded that the injuries were caused by being struck by a sharp object. The force is so strong that it cut and broke the metacarpal bone of PW6’s right hand. Looking at testimony and medical report of PW4, this court opined that it is highly improbable that the injuries sustained by PW6 were caused when he fell onto the parang. Therefore, this court rejected the version forwarded by the Defence. Even if this court rejected the Defence version, the accused is entitled to walks free if the Defence could create a reasonable doubt on the Prosecution case. This court had perused the evidence of the Defence and found none that can be of any help to the accused. In the upshot, the accused is found guilty and convicted under Section 326 at Penal Code. BERTARIKH: 06 Januari 2026 MEOR SULAIMAN BIN AHMAD TARMIZI HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN 1, SEREMBAN. 7 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Peguam bagi pihak Perayu : Muhammad Zul Azrin bin Zainuddin, Timbalan Pendakwaraya Peguam bagi pihak Responden : Raftfizi & Rao. 8 S/N KxDhHBvb0e5LMbV6sYtXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal