Back
2016 MarsdenLR 1955
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
BASKARAN SIVASAMY & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: B-05-200-08/2013]
The court upheld the conviction for manslaughter under amended charge despite discrepancies in witness credibility; key evidence supported the charge.
Headnote:The case involved a charge under s 302 of the Penal Code, which was amended to s 304(a) after the trial judge found a prima facie case for assault leading to death. The respondents were convicted on the amended charge and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment. The Public Prosecutor's appeal contested the initial ruling, alleging the trial judge erred in finding a lack of prima facie case under the original charge. The appeal was dismissed as discrepancies in witness testimonies were deemed not to undermine the core facts establishing guilt.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the charges originally filed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. charge amended due to no prima facie case. (Para 4) |
[1] The three respondents were originally charged before the High Court on a charge under s 302 of the Penal Code (' PC '), read together with s 34 of the same.
[2] At the close of the prosecution's case the learned trial judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case under the original charge but, however, had successfully established a prima facie case under s 304(a) of the PC .
[3] The trial judge hence amended the charge to one under s 304(a) of the same, to read as follows:
"Bahawa kamu pada 27hb Disember 2010 jam lebih kurang 12.30 malam di Restoran Lotus, No 1 Jalan Dato Dollah Off Persiaran Raja Muda Musa di dalam Daerah Klang di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, dengan niat bersama telah menyebabkan kematian Wan Zakaria bin Hamat (No KP: 740920-11-5307) dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan homisid salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan dan dibacakan bersama Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan"
[4] The three respondents forthwith pleaded guilty to the amended charge and were each sentenced to 21 years imprisonment commencing from the dates of their arrest (30 October 2010). Aggrieved by the whole decision, the Public Prosecutor mounted this appeal.
[5] After due consideration of the issues raised, we dismissed the Public Prosecutor's appeal and affirmed the convictions and sentences upon the respondents on the charge as amended by the learned trial judge. We now give our grounds.
