2014 MarsdenLR 2702
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
S SAMDARAN SIVASAMY – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: C-05-292-12-2013]
The court upheld a 14-year sentence for gang robbery with murder, emphasizing public interest and deterrence as key sentencing principles in violent crime cases.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 and 396 - Murder and gang robbery with murder - Appellant charged with murder, pleaded guilty to alternative charge of gang robbery with murder, sentenced to 14 years imprisonment - Offense under Section 396 is serious, carries a maximum penalty of 30 years or death - Court found no merit in appeal, determining that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and affirmed it. (Paras 1, 3, 16)
(B) Sentencing - Principles governing appellate review of sentence - Appellate court will not interfere unless the sentence is illegal, manifestly inadequate or excessive - It must reflect the gravity of the crime and public interest - Courts must uphold public confidence by imposing appropriate sentences that deter future crimes. (Paras 9, 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and another accused were charged with murder, later pleading guilty to gang robbery with murder after another co-accused was acquitted. The charge involved a robbery leading to the suffocation death of a 66-year-old woman during the commission of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the sentence imposed was appropriate given the gravity of the offense and public disapproval of violent crime, emphasizing the need for deterrence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the 14-year sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the crime and public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sentence adequately reflected the severity of the crime and public safety concerns. It emphasized that leniency in sentencing for such significant crimes undermines public confidence in the justice system.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial charges and appellant's plea. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature of the offence under s 396. (Para 3) |
| 3. details of the crime and forensic evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. appellate standards in sentencing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. public interest and deterrence in sentencing. (Para 12 , 13) |
[1] The appellant together with another person were initially charged with murder under s 302 of the Penal Code but after the 11th witness had given evidence the prosecution offered an alternative charge of gang robbery with murder under s 396 of the same Code. The appellant pleaded guilty to the alternative charge but his co-accused claimed trial. The appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment with effect from the date of his arrest while his co-accused was acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution case without his defence being called.
[2] This is the appellant's appeal against the sentence. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The alternative charge against the appellant reads as follows:
"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 12 September 2011 jam di antara 10.30 malam sehingga 13 September 2011 lebih kurang 1.45 petang, bertempat di rumah No 3, Taman Bumi Cemerlang, Ketari, di dalam Daerah Bentong, di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, telah melakukan rompak berkumpul bersesama dengan dua yang lain dan pada melakukan rompak berkumpul tersebut, telah membunuh Kaliamal a/p Kavandinia Gounder KPT: 450902- 71-5004, dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 396 Kanun Keseksaan."
[3] As can be seen from the charge three persons inclusive of the appellant were involved but apparently the third person got away without being charged. The offence upon conviction carries the death penalty or imprisonment of up to 30 years and if the offender is not sentenced to death is also liable to whipping. Without a doubt the offence under s 396 of the Penal Code is a serious offence.
[4] The facts. On 13 September 2011 at about 1.00am, shop assistant Murugan a/l Kalairajan (SP3) had gone to the deceased's house to check out on her as she failed to turn up at her retail shop as usual that day. Her house was located just behind the shop and she was staying alone. When SP3 reached the house the front door was locked, so he entered through the back door which was ajar. As he entered the house he saw the deceased lying on the floor with her hands and legs tied. Her mouth and face were also tied, the mouth with cellotape and the face with cloth. She was already dead.
[5] The pathologist's (SP2) evidence revealed that the late 66 year old Kaliamal a/p Kavandinia Gounder had suffocated to death, ie she died because she could not breathe. The following were SP2's physical findings on the deceased's body at the scene of crime:
1. Three layers of ligatures were tied around the head as follows (from outermost to innermost).
(a) A green batik cloth (140cm long) was tied around the head with a double knot at the left back of the head. It covered the part of the face from the eyes down to the chin. There was mucous fluid on the part that covered the nose.
(b) A white cloth (98cm long) was tied around the head, covering the mouth and chin, with a double knot at the left back of the head.
(c) A light green cloth (35cm long) with attached cellotape (64cm long) covered the mouth. Only the cellotape part encircled around the head. Secretions were noted at the cloth.
2. Two layers of ligatures were tied around both wrists as follows (from outermost to innermost).
(a) A blue pelikat cloth (124cm long) tied both wrists together, with both palms facing the body and the left wrist crossing over the right wrist. On removing the ligature, a double knot was first noted at the front, then a double knot at the back, and finally a single knot at the front again.
(b) A cellotape (92cm long) encircled both the wrists together three times.
3. A dark blue-pink long dress (149cm long) was tied around