The court established that the Coroner's open verdict was unjustified; the evidence indicated police unlawfully shot the deceased, warranting a homicide verdict instead.

Moses Susayan JC:

Historical Background

[1] The applicant, Gopela Krishnan, is the father of the deceased, Mohan a/l Gopela Krishnan, who was killed in an incident involving the police in an alleged criminal pursuit. The death of the deceased has called for a full enquiry to determine the circumstances surrounding his death. An open verdict was declared by a Coroner on 29 August 2022, in the Coroner's Court in Ipoh, Perak.

[2] Dissatisfied with the open verdict, the applicant sought a revision in the High Court , citing s 35(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and s 325(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code . On 12 January 2023, the High Court overturned the open verdict of the Coroner.

[3] The Attorney General's Chambers appealed against the decision of the High Court . On 3 August 2023, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the High Court , to be heard by a different judge.

[4] Hence the case before me is on revision of the decision by the learned Coroner on 29 August 2022, who gave an 'open verdict' after considering the circumstances surrounding the deceased's death.

Background Facts According To The Police

[5] On the night of 7 October 2016, until the early morning of 8 October 2016, a police operation known as Ops Cantas was conducted in the areas of Sitiawan and Air Tawar. The operation was led by ASP Sukjit Singh a/l Singh,(referred as SI3),with Koperal Zulhadi(referred to as SI4) and two other officers, Sarjan Raini, and Koperal Hazrul. They were patrolling in a police team vehicle, a Proton Preve without police insignia.

[6] Around 3.15 in the early morning, the police team encountered a suspicious Proton Waja with license plate JHF 1921 in Pekan Air Tawar. The Proton Waja was driving slowly, observing the surroundings of closed shops, which raised suspicions.

[7] The police vehicle approached the Proton Waja and signalled it to stop by horning. SI3 extended his hand through the window, shouting "polis, polis, polis" signalling it to stop. SI3 could not see inside of the Proton Waja as it was tinted. Anyway, the Proton Waja accelerated and fled towards Setiawan.

[8] A chase ensued, with the Proton Waja beating traffic lights and exceeding 100km/h. The police team pursued the Proton Waja for about seven to ten kilometres. Attempts to stop the car using sirens and honking were unsuccessful. Eventually, the car veered off the road at a 90-degree junction turn.

[9] One male occupant exited the Proton Waja from the driver's seat. SI3 and SI4, who were about 20 metres away in the police vehicle, got out, shouting "polis!". A gunshot was heard, and the male who exited the Proton Waja, was allegedly seen holding a gun. In self-defence, SI3 and SI4, each fired a shot toward the male. The male fell, and SI3 approached him, observing gunshot wounds to his chest.

[10] Upon checking the deceased's identification, SI3 identified him as Mohan a/l Gopela Krishnan, an Indian of Malaysian nationality with a wanted status and a record of past offences.

[11] The finding from subsequent investigations was that no gunshot residue was found on the deceased's hands. The Department of Chemistry Malaysia's test showed that the deceased had dangerous drugs, specifically amphetamine and methamphetamine, in his blood and urine. The blood found on the deceased's clothes matched his own.

[12] In the aftermath of this incident, the deceased's parents initiated a civil suit against two insurers, Prudential Assurance (M) Berhad and AIA Assurance (M) Berhad, to claim life insurance benefits. The insurers had disclaimed liability, on the basis that the deceased was involved in criminal activities at the time of his death. However, on 10 April 2023, the High Court ruled in favour of the deceased's parents, finding that the insurers' disclaimer of liability was not substantiated and ordering them to pay the insurance benefits.

[13] It is important to note that no Court has made a factual determination that the deceas