Back
2010 MarsdenLR 3858
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
SULONG MATJERAIE, JCA
MAGENDRAN MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05-37-05
In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, a conviction is justified if the cumulative effect of all evidence creates a rope strong enough to point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, even if no single piece of evidence is conclusive on its own.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 402A(1) - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Standard of proof - When the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, it is not required that every single piece of evidence must point to guilt individually, but rather the cumulative effect of all strands of evidence, when twisted together like a rope, must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused (Paragraphs 26, 29). It is sufficient for the court to be satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (Paragraph 24).
(B) Evidence - Alibi - A defence of alibi is an affirmative proof of the accused's presence elsewhere at the material time, which is essentially inconsistent with their presence at the crime scene (Paragraph 39). A bare denial remains insufficient; the defence must create a reasonable doubt, and the court is entitled to consider gaps or unexplained time periods in the accused's timeline (Paragraph 40, 41).
Facts of the case:
An appeal was brought against a conviction for murder concerning the death of a female victim. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including testimonies from family members regarding prior altercations, the recovery of the victim's personal belongings and jewellery from a pawnshop by the accused, and the accused's inconsistent statements and admissions to a third party. The accused relied on a defence of alibi, claiming to have been elsewhere during the relevant period, and challenged the court's evaluation of the circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, created an overwhelming case against the accused. The court observed that the appellant failed to provide a credible account for the duration of the time period in question, and that the recovery of the deceased's belongings from the accused established a clear nexus to the crime.
Issues: The main issues were whether circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, was sufficient to support a conviction, and whether the trial judge correctly evaluated the defence of alibi and the standard of proof required to secure a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where the prosecution's case is based on multiple threads of circumstantial evidence, the test is whether the combined strength of these strands points exclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure of the accused to provide a cogent explanation for the critical time period, coupled with the incriminating nature of the recovered personal effects, sufficiently established guilt.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
JUDGMENT
Sulong Matjeraie JCA:
Introduction
[1] This appeal is filed against the decision of the learned High Court Judge, Ipoh, Perak who found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.
[2] The charge against the appellant was that he murdered Sujitha a/p Subramaniam on 13 August 2000 at KM 88, Jalan Persekutuan Ipoh-Kuala Lumpur, Behrang Station, Batang Padang, Perak between 2.15pm to 9pm.
[3] After hearing the submissions of both learned counsel for the appellant and the learned deputy and after having considered the written submissions filed and authorities cited before us, we unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned High Court Judge. We now state the grounds of our decision.
Facts Of The Case
[4] The material facts are these. A body of a dead and bloodied face female wearing a dark coloured bra, clad in a pair of blue jeans was stumbled upon by SP2 Mohd Arif bin Pandak while supervising the pipe laying work for water supply project in Slim River area on 14 August 2000 at KM88 Lebuhraya Persekutuan Ipoh-Kuala Lumpur. While the neck of the dead body was tied with a plastic rope, her hands were tied over her head with a raffia string.
[5] During a post mortem, the dead body was identified as that of Sujitha a/p Subramaniam (I/C No. 771003-02-5576)(deceased) by her mother, Puan Manonmoney a/p Murugiah (I/C 511116-08-5224) and SP13 Cif Insp. Somu a/l Supramaniam. This by itself is sufficient to dismiss the allegation made by the appellant in one of the grounds of appeal that there was no proper identification of the deceased during the post mortem.
[6] The Forensic Pathologist who did the post mortem examination certified that the deceased died of ligature strangulation. The post mortem report concludes: "Her neck showed nylon string tightly applied around her neck. She also had sign of asphyxia in her eyes as there were petechiae in her eyes. There were ligature marks around her neck, bruise in the neck muscles and thyroid gland, and also fracture of hyoid bone on her neck."
[7] Police investigation reveals that the deceased visited her family in Ipoh on 12 August 2000 but left at 2pm a day later with the appellant bound for Kuala Lumpur. It was further established that both the appellant and the deceased were lovers staying together in a rented room in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.
Circumstantial Evidence Adduced
[8] The evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case was wholly circumstantial. We agree with the finding of the learned trial judge that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence is that they point only and only to the appellant. For that reason it is proper to set out the more important facts and circumstances hereunder:
(i) Among others, two sisters of the deceased gave evidence for the prosecution. One was SP5, Susilia a/p Subramaniam and the other SP8, Suguna a/p Subramaniam.
(ii) SP5 testified that the appellant and the deceased ('the couple') came back to their mother's house in Ipoh on a motorcycle on 12 August 2000. In the evening there was an altercation between the couple. The appellant was angry and was heard saying to the deceased, "saya akan ajar awak di sana". Although SP5 cannot say why those words were uttered she however affirmed that there was a quarrel between the couple. Their conversation that evening revolved round the deceased's behaviour among which the appellant informed the deceased's mother about the 'love bites' found on the neck of the deceased.
(iii) SP5 testified that she saw the couple leave for Kuala Lumpur at about 2pm the very next day on a motorcycle. That was the last time the deceased was seen alive by SP5.
(iv) It is common ground that the appellant was the last person to be seen with and the last person to be with the deceased.
(v) The other sister, SP8 testified that when the deceased came to Ipoh on 12 August 2000 she was wearing some pieces of jewellery. She also brought along with her some pieces of jew
