MURLITHARAN A/L VYRAPERUMAL

MURLITHARAN A/L VYRAPERUMAL

Court accepted accused's guilty pleas, considered mitigation and prosecution's aggravation including victim impact, applied public interest and deterrence principles and the one-transaction/totality rule; concluded both offences arose in the same transaction so sentences should run concurrently from date of arrest, and fixed punishment at 7 years imprisonment and 2 strokes for s.377C and 5 years imprisonment and 1 stroke for s.392, both to commence 30.11.2020.

Citation
BA-62JS-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Murlitharan A/L Vyraperumal
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 November 2022
Case Number
BA-62JS-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (prosecution Appeal Against Sentence) / Appeal Against Sentence (post Conviction Sentencing Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; original sentences confirmed and ordered to run concurrently from date of arrest.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, One Transaction Rule, Victim Impact Statement, Sections 377 C and 392 Kanun Keseksaan
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Robbery Sentencing Law Sentencing Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences One Transaction Rule Victim Impact Statement +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Murlitharan A/L Vyraperumal

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (prosecution Appeal Against Sentence) / Appeal Against Sentence (post Conviction Sentencing Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in light of public interest and victim impact
  2. 2 Whether sentences for two offences arising from the same transaction should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Proper commencement date for imprisonment (date passed v. date of arrest)

Ratio Decidendi

Court accepted accused's guilty pleas, considered mitigation and prosecution's aggravation including victim impact, applied public interest and deterrence principles and the one-transaction/totality rule; concluded both offences arose in the same transaction so sentences should run concurrently from date of arrest, and fixed punishment at 7 years imprisonment and 2 strokes for s.377C and 5 years imprisonment and 1 stroke for s.392, both to commence 30.11.2020.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; original sentences confirmed and ordered to run concurrently from date of arrest.

Orders

  • Accused convicted on both counts (s.377C and s.392 Kanun Keseksaan).
  • For offence under s.377C Kanun Keseksaan: imprisonment 7 years from 30.11.2020 and 2 strokes of the rotan.