Mokhtar Sidin JCA (delivering judgment of the court)::

[1] The appellant/accused in the present appeal was charged in the High Court for the murder of Soon Lay Chuan on 14 August 2001 between 3pm and 4pm at house No 66, USJ 4/2, UEP Subang Jaya, Selangor. At the end of the trial she was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to death.

[2] The facts as found by the learned trial judge were that the deceased, Soon Lay Chuan, was the wife of Yegaraj a/l V Ramiah. They were married on 23 August 1997 and had no children. Yegaraj was a senior manager at Lefarge Malayan Cement and had lived at house No 66, US J 4/2, UEP Subang Jaya, Selangor since 1997. At the time of her death, on 14 August 1997, the deceased was unemployed. House No 66, USJ 4/2, UEP Subang Jaya is a double-storey terrace link house. On 14 August 2001, only three people lived in that house, that is Yegaraj, the deceased and their maid (the appellant). On the morning of 14 August 2001, Yegaraj took a flight from Subang Airport to Kota Bharu, on business. He was sent to the airport by the deceased at about 9.30am. That was the last time he saw her alive. At about [*481] 4.15pm, on 14 August 2001, when Yegaraj was in Kota Bharu, he received a call from his secretary. She told him that she had received a call from a policeman who had identified himself as Encik Shaffie (‘SP8 ’). He had mentioned to her that he (‘En Shaffie’) had received a report that his (Yegaraj’s) maid was bleeding. Yegaraj was further informed by his secretary that Encik Shaffie had told her that the maid refused to open the gate to allow Encik Shaffie into the house and that Encik Shaffie wished to contact him (‘Yegaraj’). Yegaraj’s secretary gave him Encik Shaffie’s hand phone number and, thereupon, Yegaraj immediately contacted Encik Shaffie. Yegaraj was told by Encik Shaffie that his maid was bleeding and that she refused to let him into the house. Thereupon, Yegaraj told Encik Shaffie that he would contact his wife.

[3] Yegaraj attempted to contact his wife on her hand-phone but she did not answer the call. This was at about 4.15pm. Then, Yegaraj attempted to contact the deceased through the fixed house phone. However, it was the maid (‘the appellant’) who answered the phone. He asked her where the deceased was and she replied that the deceased had gone out. Yegaraj proceeded to ask her if a policeman had come to the house, whether he was still outside and whether there was any problem. She told him that the policeman was not there and that he had already gone. Yegaraj also asked the appellant if she was bleeding and she replied that she had cut her hand. During the trial, Yegaraj testified that the appellant had said: ‘Saya terluka di tangan. Telah memotong ayam’. Yegaraj also testified that in that telephone conversation with the maid, over the fixed house phone, he had asked her whether she was still bleeding. She had replied, ‘Tiada’. He testified that she had said it was a small cut and that when the deceased returns she will give her ‘ubat’. Yegaraj testified that the appellant was very calm and her conversation was normal. Yegaraj did not suspect anything amiss, at all. He told her over the phone to wash her hands and bandage it, if possible, and that he would send someone to the house to take her to see the doctor.

[4] Soon thereafter, Yegaraj telephoned his colleague and friend, Simond Soon Lian Beng, to proceed to his house to check and see if there was any problem with the appellant, and if there was any bleeding that required the attention of the doctor, and to help take her to the nearest doctor. Subsequently, Yegaraj telephoned his house again, at about 4.30pm, from Kota Bharu. The appellant answered the house phone. Yegaraj told her that his friend would be coming to take her to the doctor. Yegaraj then continued his attempts to call the deceased on her hand-phone and although the phone was ringing, there was, however, no answer.

[5] At about 4.55pm, Yegaraj received a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document