Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3611
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
PP – Appellant
Versus
MUGHILESVARAN JAYA CHANDRAN – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: JA-45B-4-01/2018]
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case for murder; insufficient circumstantial evidence leads to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code – Section 180 – Acquittal based on insufficient evidence – The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the charge of murder under s 302 of the Penal Code, leading to an acquittal. (Paras 76 and 78)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence – The court elucidated the standards for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence and rebutting any alternative hypotheses. (Paras 70 and 72)
Facts of the case: A woman went missing and was later found dead in her husband’s car. The accused was acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to connect him to the crime through sufficient evidence.
Findings of Court: The court found the prosecution did not prove that the accused caused the injuries to the deceased, leading to the conclusion that the charge against the accused must fail.
Issues: The court addressed whether the prosecution could prove all necessary ingredients for a murder charge including the connection between the accused and the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of maximum evaluation of evidence and established that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence failed to substantiate a case against the accused.
Result: The accused is acquitted and discharged.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] A woman who is a wife and mother goes missing. She is found dead 8 days later in her husband's car. The accused is someone the deceased knew from work. This is the essence of this case. This is the grounds of this court's decision to acquit and discharge the accused without calling for his defence.
The Charge
[2] The charge proffered against the accused read as follows:
"Bahawa kamu diantara 2 Jun 2017 jam lebih kurang 7.00 pagi hingga 10 Jun 2017 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang bertempat di tempat letak kenderaan hadapan stesen minyak BHP Taman Tropika, Kelapa Sawit di dalam daerah Kulai di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim telah membunuh Suriana binti Sigara (No KPT: 770723-13-5074), dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan.
Hukuman: Gantung sampai mati."
The Prosecution Narrative
[3] For this trial, the prosecution case was founded on the ensuing facts. On 10 June 2017 at approximately 2.00pm, one Hamdan bin Jais (SP 6) was at a lorry workshop when he received a telephone call from his brother in law, Mohd Razif bin Yunus (SP 5) informing SP 6 that his car was found at Lorong 6, Taman Sentul, Kulai. SP 6 made his way to Lorong 6, Taman Sentul, Kulai. When SP 6 arrived at Lorong 6, Taman Sentul, Kulai, SP 6 found that the car was indeed his car. SP 6 proceeded to open the driver's door of the car. SP 6 found the body of his wife, Suriana binti Sigara ("the deceased") slumped over on the front passenger seat. SP 6 ensued to contact the police.
[4] Prior to the recovery of the body of the deceased, the prosecution case unfolds that on 2 June 2017 at about 9.30am, the deceased had dropped off her daughter, Nornazatul Nabilah Binti Hamdan (SP 14) at her work place using SP 6's car. As it was the fasting month, SP 14 expected her mother, the deceased to send food to her for the breaking of fast. However, the deceased did not turn up to send food for the breaking of fast to SP 14.
[5] Consequently, SP 14 and SP 6 looked for the deceased but failed to find her. It was only on 10 June 2017, some eight days later that the deceased was found in Taman Sentul.
[6] The testimony of both SP 6 and SP 14 stated that the accused and the deceased knew each other. The testimony also stated that the accused had previously gone to SP 6's house to inform SP 6 that the accused desired the deceased.
[7] The prosecution case further disclosed that the accused had gone to a BHP petrol station in Taman Tropika on 2 June 2017. Nur Hafizah binti Mohd Akil (SP 8) who worked at the BHP petrol station identified the accused as the accused had entered into the BHP Mart.
[8] The CCTV recording at the BHP petrol station showed the accused exiting a blue Proton Waja with the registration number JDG 3443 and then into the car again. The car subsequently left the BHP petrol station.
[9] The pathologist, Dr Aznool Haidy bin Hj Ashorori (SP 13) conducted the post mortem on the deceased. According to SP 13 there were multiple stab wounds on the chest and abdomen with one stab wound penetrating the heart being fatal. It was the pathologist's view that these injuries were in keeping patterns due to a sharp object such as a knife or weapons of a similar pattern. Moreover, SP 13 was of the view that the fatal heart injury could have caused direct or immediate fatality due to excessive bleeding and eventually led to the death of the deceased at that moment in time. According to SP 13, these injuries are not consistent with patterns due to self-inflicted injury or accidental.
[10] SP 13 stated that there was a superficial incision wound 1.5 x 2cm on the back aspect of the left wrist. This injury, in the view of SP 13 likely happened during the commotion, struggle or defence. The post mortem results revealed there were five stab wounds with average measuring 1.5 x 0.7cm to 4 x 1.5cm on the front outer aspect of the right lower chest wall and abdomen. One stab wound severed the 9th and 1
