Back
2014 MarsdenLR 1933
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MANIMARAN AMAS – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: A-05-189-07/2013 A-05-190-07/2013 & A-05-191-07/2013]
The court emphasized the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in proving common intention for murder, affirming that the prosecution met its burden of proof despite the appellants' claims of an alibi.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Sections 302 and 34 - Three appellants charged with murder - Appeals dismissed - Prosecution proven common intention to commit murder beyond reasonable doubt despite claims of absence from the scene (Paras 1, 17-18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1950 - Sections 27 and 8 - Rejected admissions about evidence leading to discovery as not sufficient to prove connection to the crime but circumstantial evidence considered relevant (Paras 7-8, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering the deceased during a robbery where they were seen with weapons, and circumstantial evidence linked them to the crime (Paras 2-3).
Findings of Court:
The trial judge concluded that the defense did not establish an alibi nor reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case; the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision that a prima facie case had been established (Paras 9, 27-28).
Issues: Key issues included the assessment of circumstantial evidence regarding common intention, the presence of the accused during the crime, and procedural defects (Paras 17-20, 30-31).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the prosecution met its burden of proof, rejecting the defense's claims as afterthoughts and maintaining that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently implicated the appellants (Paras 25-29).
Result: Appeals dismissed and convictions affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's case and the events leading to the death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evaluation of evidence against each appellant. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. trial conclusion led to acquittal. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. appellants' defenses against murder charges. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. arguments raised by appellants in appeal. (Para 16) |
[1] We heard the three appeals together. The appellant in Appeals No A-05-189-07/2013; A-05-190-07/2013 and A-05-191-07/2013 were the first accused, the second accused and the third accused respectively in the High COURT at Ipoh. They were charged under s 302 read together with s 34 of the Penal Code for causing the death of one Sindambaran a/l Nadeson. We had dismissed the appeals. We now give our reasons for the said decision.
[2] The prosecution's case, briefly, is as follows. On 11 January 2009, the deceased was at home in Buntong, Ipoh. At about 10.30 pm, his wife (SP8) went to bed while the deceased was watching television. The wife was awakened by the noise of the curtain being pulled. She came out to the hall and saw the deceased being surrounded by 6 Indian men armed with parangs and there was a pool of blood near the floor where the deceased was seated.
[3] All the men were wearing masks. Apart from the jewelleries of SP8, the robbers got away with a money box, a DVD player, a few sarees and a Proton Waja car. The deceased was sent to the hospital but he died the following day. The cause of death as certified by the forensic expert (SP9) was excessive bleeding due to slash wounds.
[4] The investigation into the incident led to the arrests of the first appellant in Bukit Sentosa; the second appellant in Batu Caves and the third appellant in Teluk Panglima Garang, in Selangor. The investigation by the police also led to the discovery of a finger print of the first appellant on the grille at the back door of the house; the recovery of the DVD player and the Proton Waja car.
[5] At the end of the prosecution's case, the learned trial judge made the following finding on the first appellant (p 21: Rekod Rayuan (Kes Pendakwaan)):
"... the prosecution had at least proven that the presence of the 1st Accused at the scene of the crime. But the prosecution was yet to prove that the 1st accused was present on the date and time as alleged in the charge. Even if the prosecution could prove that the 1st Accused was present at the scene of the crime on the date and time alleged in the charge, that evidence alone without more, is insufficient to prove that he was one of the six Indian men who had slashed the deceased let alone to form the basis of a finding of guilt on a charge of murder against him".
[6] In respect of the second appellant, the learned trial judge said (p 21-22, 27: Rekod Rayuan (Kes Pendakwaan)):
"The prosecution had first established through SP7 and SP8 that a Proton Waja AFR 2356 registered in the name of Renuga a/p Sindambaram together with some jewelleries, 20 sarees and a DVD player had been reported stolen from the house at 759 Jalan Wayang, Buntung Ipoh (see Exh P16).
The prosecution had also proven that the burnt Proton Waja found by the road side of Jalan Besar Banting Teluk Panglima Garang belonged to SP7, the deceased's daughter by showing the chassis number found on the burnt Proton Waja...
Since the Proton Waja was the only incriminating evidence which could link the 2nd Accused to this crime of murder, the prosecution claimed that it was discovered in consequence of the information given by the 2nd Accused after his arrest. The prosecution sought to admit during the trial, the information, that is "saya boleh tunjukkan tempat bakar itu kereta di Banting" contained in a document marked as ID49 under s 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 .
...I find that the requirements of s 27 had not been strictly complied with by the prosecution and therefore reject the prosecution's application in admitting such information".
[7] As regards the third appellant, the finding of the learned tr
