1. ) XXXX 2. ) DINESWARAN A/L SIVALINGAM v Pendakwa Raya
Outcome
Conclusion [60] Having considered the facts of the case, public interest, the mitigation by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants, we unanimously set aside the death sentence and substituted with a conviction under section 299 of the.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (13)
Case Significance
Illustrates the appellate reduction of a murder conviction to culpable homicide under section 304(a) read with section 34 of the Penal Code and the uniform treatment of co-accused whose liability turns on a shared common intention.
This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya concerns two co-appellants whose appeals against a murder conviction were heard together with those of three other accused arising from the same incident, the death of a man found unconscious and injured. The two appellants in this appeal had, with the others, been convicted and sentenced in the High Court after the deceased was discovered, the investigating officer and forensic personnel attended, the body was identified and a post-mortem was carried out, and the arrests followed. On appeal the court re-examined the whole of the evidence and the proper characterisation of the offence, focusing on the operation of common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code, which allows an act done by one participant in furtherance of a shared intention to be attributed to the others jointly charged. Having weighed the facts, the public interest and the mitigation advanced by counsel on behalf of the appellants, the court was satisfied that the killing was properly to be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder. It unanimously set aside the death sentence and substituted a conviction under section 299 of the Penal Code, punishable under section 304(a) read together with section 34 of the same Act, and sentenced each of the accused, including the two appellants in this appeal, to twelve years' imprisonment from the date of arrest on 17 August 2017, holding that the sentence was in tandem with the current trend of sentencing. Because the liability of the co-accused rested on common intention, the substituted conviction and sentence applied uniformly across all five, including these two appellants. The judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate reduction of a murder conviction to culpable homicide and of the uniform treatment of co-accused whose liability turns on a shared common intention.
Summary
This appeal was heard together with four other related appeals involving five co-accused convicted of murdering a security guard at PPR Sungai Bonus, Wangsa Maju. The charge was reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(a) read with s.34 Penal Code. Each appellant was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment from date of arrest, replacing the death sentence.
How did the appeal affect the two appellants' conviction?
The Court of Appeal set aside their death sentence for murder and substituted a conviction under section 299 of the Penal Code, punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Why were all the co-accused treated uniformly?
Because their liability rested on common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code, so the substituted conviction and the twelve-year sentence applied uniformly across all five accused, including the two appellants in this appeal.
What sentence was imposed?
Twelve years' imprisonment from the date of arrest on 17 August 2017 for each accused, which the court held accorded with the current trend of sentencing.
Statutes Cited
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (w-05m-98-03-2022)