SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 968

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MOHD ROSLI NAQUR GANI – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: C-05(M)-524-11/2019]



Petitioner Advocates:S Sunderajan ,Respondent Advocate: How May Ling

The court ruled that the defence of grave and sudden provocation was not credible, leading to the substitution of the murder conviction with a lesser charge under Section 304 of the Penal Code.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code – Section 302 – Murder – The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the death of the deceased, including eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence. The defence of grave and sudden provocation was rejected as an afterthought. (Paras 16, 22, 34, 57)

(B) Defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation – The court emphasized that the defence must be raised at the earliest opportunity and cannot rely on accumulated grievances. The appellant's claim of provocation was not substantiated by credible evidence. (Paras 34, 40, 52)

Facts of the case: The appellant was charged with murder after the deceased was found dead in their shared quarters, with evidence suggesting a violent altercation preceded the death. (Paras 1-10)

Findings of Court: The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing the appellant's guilt. (Paras 22, 57)

Issues: The main issues were the timing of the offence and the validity of the provocation defence. (Paras 27, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defence of provocation was not credible as it was not raised during the prosecution's case and lacked supporting evidence. (Paras 34, 52)

Result: The conviction under Section 302 was set aside, and a conviction under Section 304 was substituted with a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment. (Paras 57, 58)

JUDGMENT

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellant was charged with the offence of murder under s 302 of the Penal Code . The charge read as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 17 April 2017, jam di antara 1.50 pagi hingga 11.20 pagi, bertempat di dalam rumah tidak bernombor, Chuan Leng Rubber Estate, Jalan Belenggu Halt, Taman Perindustrian Mentakab, di dalam daerah Temerloh, di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur telah melakukan bunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian terhadap Davadas a/l Raju, No KP: 57061706-5045. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan.

[2] At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to death. He has now appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Case For The Prosecution

[3] The prosecution called a total of 14 witnesses. The relevant evidence pertaining to the death of the deceased is as follows.

[4] The deceased in this case is Davadas a/l Raju. At the time of his death, he was 59 years old. He was a plantation worker. He lived in the workers' quarters (rumah kongsi) in Ladang YCL Belenggu Estate in Mentakab. He shared the quarters with two other workers, namely the appellant and Nasrul bin Mohd Zin (PW14). All three of them worked for a sub-contractor of the plantation by the name of Rajendran a/l Govinder who carried out weeding works and harvesting of oil palm fruit bunches. The estate management allocated a unit of workers' quarters for the employees of Rajendran. At the time of the incident in question, Rajendran was already unwell and had been hospitalized. He did not testify as he passed away by the time of the trial. His son, Maggeshwarrajen a/l Rajendran (PW9) who is a full-time teacher, stood in for him at the estate to oversee the weeding works. He was assisted by Gunasekaran a/l Govindan (PW10) who is his uncle. Gunasekaran acted as a mandor or supervisor for the workers. The fourth worker employed by Rajendran was Santhiran (PW11). However, he did not live in the quarters that was shared by the deceased, the appellant and Nasrul. He lived outside the estate and commuted daily to work.

[5] Before we proceed to summarize the evidence of the prosecution, to avoid confusion in respect of the names of the deceased and witnesses if one only reads excerpts from the notes of proceedings, we shall clarify the same at the outset.

[6] The deceased has been referred to by the witnesses variously as "Vaskaran" or "Das". His real name is the name stated in the charge, namely Davadas a/l Raju. The appellant is referred to as "Gopi" by the witnesses but his real name is Mohamad Rosli Bin Naqur Gani which is also the name stated in the charge. Santhiran a/l Letchumanan (PW11) is also referred as Chandran by the witnesses. Nasrul is referred to by the witnesses as "Aki". His real name is Nasrul bin Mohd Zin (PW14). Of the four employees of Rajendran, he is the only one who does not speak or understand Tamil. Nonetheless, despite the different names by which the deceased and the witnesses were called, there was no issue of identity at the trial. The crucial eyewitnesses are acquainted with each other.

[7] On the morning of 17 April 2017, at about 7 am, Gunasekaran arrived at the estate as usual. He met the appellant and an estate worker by the name of Vadivalan a/l Nadarajah (PW12) near the workers' quarters. Vadivalan lived near the quarters in which the appellant, the deceased and Nasrul (PW14) were lodged. They told Gunasekaran that the deceased was unconscious. On the way to see the deceased, Gunasekaran met Nasrul (PW14) who appeared to be leaving the estate with his bag for clothes. He was distraught but did not explain why. Gunasekaran proceeded to the quarters that the deceased shared with the appellant and Nasrul (PW14). He found Davadas unresponsive and immediately called his nephew, Maggeshwarrajen who rushed to the quarters from a nearby school. Davadas was lying on the floor with some blood on his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top