Alagesan Kamaraj v Pendakwa Raya (B-05(SH)-95-03/2024)

This is an appeal by an Indian national, Alagesan Kamaraj (“the Appellant” or “the Accused”) against the decision of the High Court, in which the learned High Court Judge found that the Appellant was guilty of the charge and was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code. Upon the conviction, the Appellant was sentenced to 38 years of imprisonment with 15 strokes of whipping.

At the High Court, the charge was read and explained to the accused by the Tamil interpreter and the Appellant himself had pleaded guilty before the court. Dissatisfied, the Appellant then filed for an appeal against both conviction and sentence to this Court. However, at the hearing on 21.07.2025, the Appellant withdrew the appeal against the conviction and proceeded with an appeal on sentence. We therefore struck out the Appellant’s appeal on conviction and upheld the conviction by the High Court. We then proceeded to hear the Appellant’s appeal on the sentence.

After reading the written submissions filed, hearing both parties orally and perusing the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeal on sentence. We applied our discretion provided under the Abolition of Death Penalty Act [Act 846] which conferred on this Court the discretion to impose either the sentence of death or sentence of imprisonment of not less than 30 years and not more than 40 years. We therefore impose a sentence of 35 years imprisonment with 12 strokes of whipping.

The charge against the Appellant reads as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 10/9/2020, jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang, bertempat di Pusat Jagaan Orang Tua Templer, No.73 Jalan Templer, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling Jaya, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah melakukan bunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian terhadap Sugan Ganesan (No. Passport R971179) dan dgn itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan."

The learned High Court Judge (“HCJ”) had outlined the material facts of the prosecution’s case in his grounds of judgment, which we respectfully adopt with modification whenever necessary. The relevant facts, as found by the learned HCJ, were that the Appellant had killed the deceased at the Pusat Jagaan Orang Tua Templer, No. 73 Jalan Templer, Petaling Jaya. He came to the living room where the deceased was sleeping and took a “tukul besi” from under the table in the living room and struck the deceased’s head with several blows. There was a witness named Ramasamy Subaramaniam, who was sleeping next to the deceased, who woke up and saw the Appellant holding the “tukul besi” and leaving the scene.

The injuries suffered by the deceased were consistent with the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P8), which revealed that the cause of death was due to “Cranio Cerebral Injuries due to Blunt Trauma”.

As the appeal on conviction was withdrawn, and in fact, the Appellant had pleaded guilty at the High Court, we will not discuss the conviction and focus only on the sentencing.

We have considered the facts of the case and the reasons given by the learned High Court Judge on the sentence imposed on the Appellant, in which the learned High Court Judge had considered the mitigation factors, among others, that the Appellant had pleaded guilty and had saved the court’s time and expenses, as well as the witnesses' time. At the same time, considering the seriousness and brutality of the murder, the learned High Court Judge was not inclined to give a one-third or one-quarter reduction of sentence whereby according to the learned High Court Judge, the crime committed is a heinous one and public policy requires a deterrent sentence. Besides, the law has also prescribed a minimum mandatory sentence for the offence.

In this present appeal, at the hearing, having considered the submission by both parties and the application of the Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 (Act 846) and the amended section 302 of the Penal Code, together with the agreed facts, the Appellant is hereby sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest on 10.09.2020 and 12 strokes of whipping.

In the upshot, we struck out the appeal on conviction and allowed the appeal on sentence. The conviction by the High Court was affirmed but the sentence reduced. It was our unanimous decision that a sentence of imprisonment of 35 years, together with 12 strokes of whipping would be appropriate. Date of Decision: 21 July 2025 Grounds Issued: 27 January 2026 -sgd- (AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Putrajaya Counsel For the Appellant : Jayananda Rao (together with Mohtarudin bin Baki and Kishan) [Messrs. Rao & Kamal] For the Respondent : Solehah Noratikah binti Ismail [Attorney General's Chambers]