JEYABALAN A/L KUMARASAMY v Pendakwa Raya
Outcome
Akhirnya, rayuan OKT terhadap sabitan seperti dalam Notis Rayuan ditolak sementara rayuan OKT atas hukuman dibenarkan seperti mana yang dinyatakan di dalam perenggan [61] di atas.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Illustrates an appellate court affirming a conviction under section 326 of the Penal Code for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon while exercising its power to moderate an otherwise lawful sentence — reducing the term and setting aside the fine.
This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Butterworth concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means under section 326 of the Penal Code. The appellant had been tried in the Sessions Court on a charge that he intentionally caused grievous hurt to the victim, using a parang (a machete) — a weapon capable of causing death if used as an offensive weapon — at a storage premises. The Sessions Court convicted him and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment from the date of conviction and a fine of RM5,000 (in default, five months' imprisonment), with whipping exempted because he was over 50 years of age. He appealed against both conviction and sentence.
On the conviction, the High Court reviewed whether the ingredients of the section 326 offence had been established, whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case at the close of its case, and whether the defence had raised a reasonable doubt at the close of the defence. It held that the prosecution witnesses had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the defence had failed to raise any doubt, so the conviction was safe and should not be disturbed. On sentence, the court accepted that the term and fine imposed fell within the range permitted by law. Nevertheless, having considered the whole of the facts, the appellant's background and the matters raised in his petition of appeal, and taking the view that he was entitled to a measure of leniency, the court allowed the appeal against sentence in part: it reduced the term of imprisonment from seven years to six years from the date of conviction and set aside the fine of RM5,000. The judgment illustrates an appellate court affirming a section 326 conviction while moderating an otherwise lawful sentence.
Did the appeal against the section 326 conviction succeed?
No. The High Court held that the prosecution witnesses had proved the charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a parang beyond reasonable doubt, that a prima facie case had been established, and that the defence had failed to raise any reasonable doubt. The conviction was found safe and was affirmed.
How was the sentence altered on appeal?
Although the court accepted the original sentence was within the lawful range, it allowed the appeal against sentence in part after weighing the facts, the appellant's background and his petition of appeal. It reduced the imprisonment from seven years to six years from the date of conviction and set aside the RM5,000 fine, whipping having already been exempted on account of the appellant's age exceeding 50.
Cases Cited (3)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pb-42s-1-09-2024)