The Respondent/Defendant and the victim, who was his wife had rented a room in a house. On one morning, a tenant of another room in that very same house witnessed the defendant leaving his room and ever since his departure he has not returned for approximately two days and the room remained locked ever since. Upon the request of their landlady, the aforementioned tenant of the other room broke into the respondent's room, where the dead body of his wife was discovered with multiple stab wounds. Upon investigation, a trace of the defendant's DNA was discovered on the cloth of the deceased. Later, the defendant was arrested at a hotel room, where he had checked in with a different identity. During his arrest, he had a total of RM 7000 on his person. The defendant was then charged for murder at the High Court in Shah Alam, however he denied the charge.
Legislation and Cases Referred to
One of the legislation this case had referred to is Section 182 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states the procedures at the conclusion of the trial. The Section states that;
(1) At the conclusion of the trial, the Court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court shall find the accused guilty and he may be convicted on it.
(3) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court shall record an order of acquittal
Another legislation that has been referred to is Section 302 of the Penal Code, which clearly states that whoever commits the act of murder, shall be punished with death.
One of the previous cases that has been referred to by this prosecution case is Chandrasekaran & Ors v PP (1971), where it was observed that;
"The evidence of subsequent conduct is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Ordinance and may properly be taken into account, after the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused, to reinforce the satisfaction of the court as to the proof of guilt made out by the prosecution case (see Chandika Prasad v Emperor 126 IC 684)."
This prosecution case also refers to many previous cases that shares the similar circumstances and arguments to it, such as the cases of Chan Chwen Kong v PP (1962), Jayaraman & Ors v PP (1982), Karam Singh v PP (1967) and Chang Kim Siong v PP (1968).
Issues
(1968).There are two main issues in this case. The first one is whether the circumstantial evidence that has been provided was sufficient enough to prove of the accused/respondent's guilt. The second issue is whether the defense has managed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.
Arguments
By the Prosecution:
- The prosecution argued that the defendant was seen leaving the rented room with a bag on the morning of 9 August 2012 by the tenant of another room in that same house. The pathologist who had examined the deceased estimated the time of her death was between two to three days prior to the recovery of the body on 10 August 2012.
- The prosecution claimed that the forensic tests carried out showed that the defendant’s DNA was found on the blood samples lifted from items of clothing worn by the deceased when she was murdered and from the fingernails of the deceased. The police also found a torn photograph in the room, and on a TV rack in the room that was occupied by the deceased and the defendant contains the blood of the defendant.
- The prosecution also argued that the defendant had used the fake identification card and a fake passport to checked into the Bangi hotel.
- The police also had recovered a sum of RM7,000 in cash from the hotel room occupied by the defendant. During that time, the defendant admitted that the said sum were the proceeds of the sale by him from some gold jewelry after asking for the permission from his wife.
By the Defendant:
- The defendant argued that the reason he left his rented room and stayed in the Bangi hotel was because of the hotel's distance to his place of work which is Bangi, and due to his late working hours he decided to spend the night at the hotel.
- The defendant argues that his DNA found in the blood stains on the deceased’s clothing, on the torn photograph and on the TV rack in the room might have came from a cut inflicted to his hands when he was trying to grab the picture frame. He admitted that during that day he had some disagreement with his wife and a glass frame was broken during that same day.
- The defendant argued that the reason he had used a fake identity to check into the hotel was because his work permit had expired.
- The defendant stated that the jewelry actually belonged to him although he had asked the permission of the deceased (his wife) before selling it for cash.
Judgment
1. At the close of the trial, the judge had failed to fully address and weigh the totality of evidence, as the prosecution had more than sufficient amount of arguments and evidence to establish the defendant's motive in causing the death of the victim.
2. In the end, it was held there was no reasonable doubt provided by the defendant, and thus according to Section 302 of the Penal Code, the defendant was sentenced to death by hanging under the charge of murder.
