HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PP – Appellant
Versus
ANANDAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identity of accused in an unlawful assembly must be proven for liability. (Para 16) |
[16] In order to succeed in a prosecution under s 302 read together with s 149 of the Penal Code , both offences must be proven by the prosecution. In order to implicate any person with murder, it must be proven that either the three accused persons be it either jointly or by them acting individually, committed murder. However, given that s 149 of the allows for the acts of those in the unlawful assembly to be attributed to any member of the unlawful assembly due to the common object which the members of the unlawful assembly embarked upon, the three accused persons will be guilty as they will be vicariously liable for the acts done by the members of the unlawful assembly.
The Evidence Of SP11, SP12 And SP13
[17] The case of the prosecution rests on the three eyewitnesses. They were Muhammad Sadiq Muthu bin Abdullah (SP11), Ganeswaran a/l Govindasamy (SP12) and Saravanan a/l Raja (SP13). The three witnesses were at the scene of crime.
[18] SP11 was the owner of a Restaurant Safira Maju, which was at the corner of the road where the incident took place. It was explained in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.