Back
2011 MarsdenLR 2730
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
MURUGESAN MUNIYANDI – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: B-05-112-2008]
The court determined that public interest must guide sentences in violent crimes, emphasizing that a guilty plea does not guarantee a reduced sentence, especially in premeditated attacks.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 and Section 304(a) - Appeal against sentence for murder - Accused pleaded guilty to lesser charge - Initially charged with murder, the High Court imposed an 11-year sentence after plea for discount - Court found the sentence inadequate considering the attack's premeditated and vicious nature. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 16, 26)
(B) Guilty Pleas - A plea of guilty does not automatically entitle an accused to a lesser sentence; public interest and severity of the crime must guide sentencing - Courts should not treat plea discounts as legal entitlements. (Paras 15, 16, 26)
(C) Sentencing Principles - Sentences should reflect seriousness of the crime and be guided by public interest; Court can intervene if lower court’s sentence is manifestly inadequate. (Paras 12, 26)
Facts of the case:
The accused, after a quarrel with his brother-in-law, poured boiling oil on him while he slept, resulting in severe burns and subsequent death. Sentenced to 11 years for a calculated act of cruelty. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
Court found prior sentence inadequate due to the premeditated nature of the act, ultimately increasing the sentence to 18 years imprisonment.
Issues: Whether the High Court judge's sentence of 11 years was adequate considering the nature of the crime and methodologies involved in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that public interest is paramount in violent crimes, particularly those involving premeditated intent; a plea of guilty should not overshadow the crime's severity when imposing sentences.
Result: Appeal allowed, enhancing the sentence to 18 years imprisonment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding sentencing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of sentencing principles and case comparisons. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
[1] This is an appeal by the public prosecutor against sentence. The respondent ("the accused"), an Indian National, was charged for the murder of one Subramaniam a/l Ganesan, also an Indian national, on 23 February 2006 at about 3am at Lot 239Y, Jalan Kampung Jawa, Batu 3 1/2, Klang, an offence under s 302 Penal Code . The accused claimed trial.
[2] On 14 July 2008 when this case came up for trial, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor tendered an alternative charge under s 304(a) Penal Code . The accused pleaded guilty to the alternative charge after same was read and explained to him. The High Court, accordingly, found him guilty on the alternative charge and convicted him. After considering his plea in mitigation and the facts relating to the commission of the offence, he was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment from the date of his arrest.
[3] The facts of the case are as follows. The accused was the brother-in-law of Subramaniam a/l Ganesan ("the deceased"). The deceased worked as a barber and he stayed alone in a room on the first floor of a shop premises at Lot 239Y, Batu 3 1/2, Kampong Jawa, Klang ("the said premises"). The accused stayed at Golden Villa, Batu 4, Kampong Jawa, Klang.
[4] On 22 February 2006 at about 11.30pm the accused had a quarrel with the deceased at the said premises. In the quarrel the accused suffered injuries to his right eyebrow and left leg. The accused left the deceased's room and went to seek for medical treatment.
[5] On 23 February 2006 at about 3am, the accused went back to the deceased's room at the said premises. The deceased was sleeping at that time. The accused then boiled cooking oil in a frying pan. After the cooking oil was hot he poured the boiling cooking oil onto the deceased's body. The deceased woke up and tried to catch the accused. The accused hit the deceased's head with the hot frying-pan and threw curry powder to the deceased's face.
[6] The deceased was sent to Hospital Tengku &uan Rahimah, Klang on 23 February 2006 at about 4.56am. He died on 1 March 2006. Post-mortem examination showed that he sustained severe burns to his face, neck, front and back part of his body, both shoulders and upper limbs. He also had burn injuries to the front of both thighs. The pattern of burn showed that it was caused by hot fluid. His cause of death was septicaemia due to severe burn.
[7] The accused was arrested by the police on 24 February 2006 at about 1.10am.
[8] The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor submitted that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused was manifestly inadequate. She submitted that the learned High Court judge had erred in not considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the public interest. It is her submission that on the facts and circumstances of this case the accused ought to be punished with the severest sentence and the accused should not be given a discount for pleading guilty.
[9] The accused's plea in mitigation before the learned High Court judge can be found at pp 61 to 79 of the Appeal Record. He was 40 years old when he was charged for this offence. He came to Malaysia in 2004 and worked as a hairdresser at Kg Jawa, Klang. He has a wife and two sons, 16 and 20 years old. He had no previous criminal record.
[10] Learned counsel for the accused urged the learned High Court judge to take into consideration the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty to the alternative charge. The accused should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty. In support of that learned counsel cited the cases of Sau Soo Kim v. PP , [1975] 2 MLJ 134 and Mohd Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. PP ; [1988] 1 MLJ 167 ; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 209 and a few other cases.
