Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2835
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
DEEPANRAJ SUBRAMANIAN V.PP
[Criminal Appeal No: J-05-273-11-2012]
The court upheld the conviction of culpable homicide, emphasizing the lack of substantiated self-defense and confirming that sufficient evidence supported the trial judge’s decision.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 and 304(a) - Murder charge reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Appellant charged under s 302, later amended to s 304(a) - Court ruled that self-defence was not applicable, confirming the evidence of multiple stab wounds inflicted by the appellant - The evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 40, 48)
(B) Burden of Proof - The learned trial judge evaluated the evidence, concluding that the defence did not raise reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
(C) Appeal - Dismissal of appeal and affirmation of conviction due to lack of merit in the appellant's claims regarding witness credibility and evidential inconsistencies. (Paras 69, 72)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was found guilty of culpable homicide after stabbing the deceased multiple times during an altercation. The deceased died of severe injuries. The trial judge established that the altercation was sudden, with no premeditated intent to kill. (Paras 1, 4, 48)
Findings of Court:
The trial court properly assessed the evidence, concluding that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under s 304(a) due to a sudden fight. (Paras 40, 48)
Issues: The court addressed the appropriate burden of proof, the role of witness credibility, and the admissibility of discrepancies in witness testimony. (Paras 8, 11, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that self-defence wasn't substantiated by the evidence, and emphasized the necessity of a speaking judgment and thorough examination of the facts presented during the trial. (Paras 10, 12, 24, 72)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of 20 years upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant charged and convicted of culpable homicide. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's arguments against conviction outlined. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court upheld trial judge's findings on self-defense. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court dismissed speculation over dna evidence and its value. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. discrepancies in witness testimonies examined and ruled non-material. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. caution advised in treating evidence of interested witnesses. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. investigation shortcomings noted but deemed not material. (Para 37 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. amendment of charge properly justified by trial findings. (Para 45 , 46 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. court found no violation of procedural rights in amended charge. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. judgment quality discussed; found to meet necessary standards. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
[1] The appellant was charged for the murder of one Karinathan a/l Ananthasegaran under s 302 of the Penal Code . At the end of the prosecution case, the learned trial judge amended the charge to one under s 304(a) of the and ordered the appellant to enter his defence. At the close of the defence case, the appellant was found guilty under the amended charge and was sentenced to an imprisonment for a period of 20 years with effect from the date of his arrest.
[2] Dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the appellant now appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Facts
[3] The brief facts of the case as unfolded in the prosecution case may be stated as follows. On 21 August 2010 at about 10.00pm SP4 the father of the deceased, was informed that his son, Thevandran, was involved in an accident and was brought to the Sultanah Aminah Hospital. Later at the hospital, together with his brother-in-law, Ramesh, SP4 went to the car park to smoke and saw the deceased talking to a group of Indian men. SP4 recognised that among these men, were SP5 and the appellant.
[4] SP4 saw there was pushing and shoving between the deceased and the appellant who was described as being long haired, shoulder length. SP4 went over to investigate and saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with a knife. SP4 took a rubbish bin to hit the appellant and was injured in the process. The injury to SP4's arm was caused by the appellant brandishing the knife against him. SP5 stated in a similar vein that he saw the appellant stabbing the deceased a few times using a knife.
[5] The medical evidence tendered by the prosecution shows that the deceased suffered multiple stab wounds and the fatal injury was a stab wound to the heart. The deceased also suffered other stab wounds on his shoulder, left abdomen and left chest.
The Appeal
[6] In advancing his appeal, the appellant had put forth a multitude of reasons attacking the decision of the learned trial judge. We append below the list of issues raised by the appellant's learned counsel in his written submissions. They are as follows:
i. beban pembuktian di atas kes pembelaan.
ii. eks P8A(1)
iii. analisa DNA
iv. corak dan cara kecederaan
v. percanggahan material
vi. penyiasatan tidak lengkap
vii. saksi-saksi berkepentingan
viii. pertuduhan pindaan
ix. gagal mematuhi s 162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah
x. kes melampaui keraguan munasabah
xi. speaking judgment
xii. hukuman
[7] We will deal with the issues raised, some of which may be dealt with collectively.
Burden Of Proof On The Defence And Beyond Reasonable Doubt
[8] On the first issue learned counsel submitted that the learned trial judge had failed to consider the evidence tendered by the defence witness that, the appellant did not stab the deceased but merely brandished the said knife. The appellant grabbed the knife from the deceased in self defence. He further submitted that the evidence of SD4 has been totally disregarded by the learned trial judge. The defence accordingly had raised a reasonable doubt and the appellant ought to have been acquitted and discharged.
[9] It ought to be said that the issue raised by the appella
