1. ) YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) Arunasalam A/l Supumaran [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

1. ) YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) Arunasalam A/l Supumaran [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Conviction of 1st accused upheld because evidence proved a negotiated sale and delivery establishing trafficking and knowledge was inferable from conduct; convictions of 2nd and 3rd accused unsafe because failure to call material witness (Linges), investigative gaps and absence of cogent proof of knowledge or pre-arranged common intention raised reasonable doubt.

Citation
W-05(M)-521-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / 1st Accused: MURALIKRISHNA A/L NOKIAH; Appellant / 2nd Accused: YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL; Appellant / 3rd Accused: ARUNASALAM A/L SUPUMARAN; Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 August 2025
Case Number
W-05(M)-521-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
1st accused conviction affirmed; death sentence set aside and substituted with life imprisonment plus twelve strokes of the cane commencing from date of arrest; 2nd and 3rd accused convictions and sentences set aside and they are discharged and acquitted.
Legal Topics
Trafficking (sale), Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 S39 B, Agent Provocateur (s40 a Dda), Common Intention (s34 Penal Code), Adverse Inference (evidence Act S114(g))
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Trafficking (sale) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 S39 B Agent Provocateur (s40 a Dda) Common Intention (s34 Penal Code) Adverse Inference (evidence Act S114(g))

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MURALIKRISHNA A/L NOKIAH

Appellant / 1st Accused

YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL

Appellant / 2nd Accused

ARUNASALAM A/L SUPUMARAN

Appellant / 3rd Accused

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a negotiated sale and delivery established trafficking under section 2 and 39B DDA
  2. 2 Whether accused had knowledge of drug contents or only momentary custody
  3. 3 Whether there was common intention between accused persons

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction of 1st accused upheld because evidence proved a negotiated sale and delivery establishing trafficking and knowledge was inferable from conduct; convictions of 2nd and 3rd accused unsafe because failure to call material witness (Linges), investigative gaps and absence of cogent proof of knowledge or pre-arranged common intention raised reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

1st accused conviction affirmed; death sentence set aside and substituted with life imprisonment plus twelve strokes of the cane commencing from date of arrest; 2nd and 3rd accused convictions and sentences set aside and they are discharged and acquitted.

Orders

  • Conviction of Muralikrishna a/l Nokiah (1st accused) affirmed
  • Death sentence of Muralikrishna a/l Nokiah set aside and substituted with life imprisonment commencing 14 January 2019 and twelve (12) strokes of the cane