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

2019 MarsdenLR 2483

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PP – Appellant
Versus
ANANDAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:G Sivakumar,Sukhdev,Yaashni ,Respondent Advocate: Mohd Rizal Azani

Table of Content
1. identity of accused in an unlawful assembly must be proven for liability. (Para 16)
Analysis

[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

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