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

2024 MarsdenLR 1552

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
SANDERASEGARAN NITHENANHAM – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05(L)-68-04-2022(A)]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Fairuz Johari ,Respondent Advocate: Charan Singh Kartar Singh,Noor Farihah Arshad

The failure to specify the limb under s 300 of the Penal Code does not affect the prosecution's case, and sufficient evidence can establish a conviction for murder.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code – Section 302 and 304(a) – Murder and culpable homicide – The respondent was initially convicted of murder but the Court of Appeal substituted the conviction to culpable homicide due to a failure to specify the limb under s 300 – The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was upheld, establishing a prima facie case of murder – The trial judge's findings were restored, and the respondent was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment. (Paras 1-67)

(B) Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic evidence, to establish the respondent's guilt – The trial judge found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for murder. (Paras 4-66)

Facts of the case: The respondent was charged with the murder of Durga Devi, with evidence including witness accounts of a violent altercation and forensic findings of multiple injuries on the deceased. (Paras 1-12)

Findings of Court: The trial judge found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case of murder under s 302, and the Court of Appeal's substitution of the conviction was overturned. (Paras 17-67)

Issues: The main issues included whether the trial judge's failure to specify the limb under s 300 affected the prosecution's case and whether the non-calling of a witness warranted an adverse inference. (Paras 23-62)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to specify the limb under s 300 did not affect the prosecution's case, and the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the elements of murder. (Paras 24-57)

Result: The appeal was allowed, restoring the conviction under s 302 with a sentence of 35 years' imprisonment. (Paras 67)

JUDGMENT

Nordin Hassan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] Sanderasegaran s/o Nithenanham ('the respondent') was charged with the murder of a woman, Durga Devi d/o Selvam ('the deceased') under s 302 of the Penal Code . As specified in the charge, the alleged offence was committed between 11.00pm on 27 February 2016 and 6.00am on 28 February 2016 at house number 4, Kg. Batu Besi, Ladang Sengat, Simpang Pulai, in the district of Ipoh, in the State of Perak Darul Redzuan.

[2] The respondent claimed trial at the Ipoh High Court and upon conclusion of the trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, his conviction under s 302 of the Penal Code was substituted with a conviction under s 304(a) of the same Code, and the respondent was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest.

[3] Being aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor ('the appellant') filed an appeal to this Court against the said substitution of the conviction from an offence of murder under s 302 to an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code .

The Case For The Prosecution

[4] The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish its case and the relevant evidence adduced in the prosecution's narrative, was as follows.

[5] On 28 February 2016, at about 8.00 am, Corporal Norhasimah binti Ibrahim (SP2) who was stationed at Simpang Pulai Police Station, received an emergency call informing that there was a robbery at a house, at the address mentioned in the charge. Based on this information, Lans Corporal Shafiq Azizi, and Corporal Jisham bin Jamu (SP3) proceeded to the house. On arrival at the said house, they entered the house, and SP3 saw two Medical Officers examining an Indian woman who was lying in the hall. SP3 was informed by one of the Medical Officers that the woman was already dead.

[7] In the house, SP3 also saw the respondent standing at the door of a room, and when asked by SP3 what had happened, the respondent replied that four Indian men had entered the house and had robbed and hit the deceased before fleeing from the house.

[8] The prosecution's main witness in this case was Saravanan s/o Maniam (SP6), who lived next door to the house where the incident happened. SP6 has lived there for 18 years and has known the respondent since they were young.

[9] SP6 testified that on 27 February 2016, at about 7.00 pm, when SP6 and his wife, Peruwati binti Samiran, reached home from work, SP6 saw the respondent talking to a woman in front of his house. They then entered the house and SP6 went to sleep while his wife watched television. At about 1.00 am, 28 February 2016, SP6's wife woke him up and informed him that she heard the sound of people fighting in the neighbour's house where the incident happened. At the same time, SP6 heard a loud hitting noise, followed by a woman's voice pleading not to be hit. SP6 also heard a male voice that he recognized as the respondent's. SP6 then peeked into the neighbour's house and saw the respondent walking out through the main door and after looking to his left and right he went back in. After a while, SP6 heard hitting noises again from the said house and a woman's voice pleading not to be hit. SP6 also heard the respondent's voice saying 'mati..mati' ('die..die').

[10] Thereafter, SP6 went back to sleep and when he woke up at about 5.20 am, he could still hear the hitting noise and at about 6.15am he heard a woman's voice breathing heavily and suspected she was dying. Next, at about 6.40 am, when he was going to work, he saw the respondent in front of the house where the incident occurred.

[11] The deceased's body was sent to Hospital Raja Pemaisuri Bainun, Ipoh, Perak, and a post-mortem was conducted on 29 February 2016 at 9.00am by Dr Mohammad Shafie bin Othman (SP5) who identified the cause of death was head and soft tissue injuries due to blunt object trauma. ('kecederaan kepala dan tisu lembut akibat t

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 Back to top