SURESH A/L MUTHU

SURESH A/L MUTHU

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because the charge was duplicitous (melulu/merbahaya) rendering it defective under s163 CPC and prejudicial to the accused, and because discrepancies in evidence (motorcycle identity and causation) meant essential elements of s41(1) were not established; accordingly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
NG-83-15-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Suresh a/l Muthu
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 May 2023
Case Number
NG-83-15-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (road Traffic Fatality) / After Close of Prosecution; Court Found No Prima Facie Case and Discharged Accused (no Case Submission)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; no case to answer; charge dismissed.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving Causing Death, Duplicity in Charge, No Prima Facie Case, Section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987, Sections 163 and 422 Criminal Procedure Code
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Dangerous Driving Causing Death Duplicity in Charge No Prima Facie Case Section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Suresh a/l Muthu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (road Traffic Fatality) / After Close of Prosecution; Court Found No Prima Facie Case and Discharged Accused (no Case Submission)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s41(1) Road Transport Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether duplicity in the charge (melulu or merbahaya) rendered the charge defective under s163 CPC and uncureable under s422
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved causation given discrepancy in motorcycle identity

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because the charge was duplicitous (melulu/merbahaya) rendering it defective under s163 CPC and prejudicial to the accused, and because discrepancies in evidence (motorcycle identity and causation) meant essential elements of s41(1) were not established; accordingly the accused was discharged without being called to answer.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; no case to answer; charge dismissed.

Orders

  • Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan di bawah s41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 tanpa dipanggil membela diri.
  • Perintah wang jaminan yang telah didepositkan di mahkamah dikembalikan kepada tertuduh.