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

2019 MarsdenLR 1917

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
ASMARANI GHAZALI – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:DPP Mohd Zain Ibrahim ,Respondent Advocate: Dato' Hanif Hassan

Table of Content
1. appeal questioning the adequacy of the sentence. (Para 1 , 4)
2. facts indicate child's death due to act of negligence. (Para 2)
3. manifestly inadequate sentence warranting appeal. (Para 5)

[1] This is an appeal by the prosecution (appellant) against sentence which was imposed on the accused (respondent) by the learned HighCourt Judge.

[2] The respondent was charged under s 302 of the Penal Code and an alternative charge under the Child Act 2001 (the Act) in the High Court. The respondent pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under the Act which reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 13 Jun 2018, antara jam lebih kurang 9.30 pagi hingga 10.00 pagi, di rumah alamat No. 27, Jalan TTJ 3/1 B, Taman Tuanku Jaafar, Sungai Gadut, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, telah menganiayai XXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXX (No K/P: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) dengan cara memasukkan sebiji cili berwarna hijau ke dalam mulut sehingga menyebabkan kematian, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 dibaca bersama s 31(5)(b) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001 dan kamu boleh dijatuhkan hukuman seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah s 31(1) Akta Kanak-kanak 2001."

[3] The respondent p

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top