GURPREET SINGH v Pendakwa Raya (B-05(M)-268-08/2023)

Sua Lay

Gurpreet Singh] CORAM: AZIZAH BINTI HAJI NAWAWI, HMR AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR AHMAD KAMAL BIN MD. SHAHID, HMR ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Kedua-dua rayuan sepertimana yang dinyatakan di atas merupakan rayuan-rayuan terhadap keputusan YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (YA HMT) bertarikh 28 Julai 2023 yang mendapati Sua Lay (Tertuduh Pertama) dan Gurpreet Singh (Tertuduh Kedua) bersalah, dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan kerana membunuh seorang pemandu Grab bernama Aiman bin Nosri (Si mati). [2] Pertuduhan yang dikemukakan terhadap kedua-dua Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: "Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 21 Jun 2018 jam lebih kurang 10.08 malam bertempat di tempat letak kereta Lorong belakang blok C, Taman Selayang Makmur, Selayang Baru, Batu Caves dalam Daerah Gombak, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dengan niat bersama telah melakukan bunuh ke atas seorang lelaki Melayu nama Aiman bin Nosri, No. KP: 910522- 14-5681, berumur 27 tahun dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama Seksyen 34 Kanun yang sama". [3] Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah dijatuhi hukuman gantung sampai mati yang membawa kepada rayuan-rayuan di hadapan kami. Kes pendakwaan [4] Si mati tinggal di Nilai, Negeri Sembilan bersama ibunya Norizawati binti Dani (SP4) dan bapa tirinya Ahmad Joahari bin Abu Bakar (SP5). Si mati merupakan seorang pemandu Grab, dengan memandu kereta jenis MyVi berwarna hitam dengan nombor pendaftaran WRA 8971 (kereta Grab Si mati). [5] Menurut SP4, Si mati biasanya akan berkongsi perjalanan Grab yang dijalankannya dengan berkongsi lokasi dalam kumpulan WhatsApp keluarga. Si mati mempunyai dua (2) telefon bimbit, iaitu sebuah telefon Huawei untuk tujuan aplikasi Grab dan sebuah I-phone untuk kegunaan harian. [6] Pada 21 Jun 2018, Si mati memaklumkan kepada SP4 bahawa beliau akan menghadiri majlis makan malam di Hotel Renaissance Kuala Lumpur pada 22 Jun 2018 bersama dua (2) rakan sekerjanya, iaitu Muhammad Ridzuan bin Ismail (SP2) dan Mohammad Arif Fadlin bin Badrul Zaharin (SP3). [7] Pada tengah hari 21 Jun 2018, Si mati telah berkongsi tangkapan skrin tugasan Grab ke Puncak Alam. Oleh kerana Si mati biasanya tidak menjawab panggilan ketika memandu dan juga kadangkala bermalam bersama rakan sekerja, SP4 tidak mengesyaki apa-apa apabila Si mati tidak pulang ke rumah pada 22 Jun 2018. [8] Pada pagi 23 Jun 2018, SP4 mendapati Si mati masih belum pulang ke rumah dan panggilan yang dibuat kepadanya tidak dijawab. SP4 menghubungi SP2 dan SP3 untuk bertanyakan tentang keberadaan Si mati. Setelah dimaklumkan bahawa Si mati tidak hadir ke majlis makan malam pada 22 Jun 2018, SP4 telah pergi ke balai polis untuk membuat laporan orang hilang berkaitan kehilangan Si mati. [9] Ini mendorong SP5 untuk memaklumkan kepada pihak Grab bagi menjejak lokasi Si mati. Laporan polis telah dibuat oleh SP4 di IPD Sepang pada 23 Jun 2018 (P8). P8 telah dihantar kepada Grab untuk bantuan, dan lokasi yang dikesan oleh Grab adalah di Selayang. [10] SP5 turut menghubungi rakannya, Dato' Ahmad Qadha bin Wan Teh (SP9), yang memiliki syarikat keselamatan dan mempunyai kenalan di syarikat telco. Seorang rakan dari telco tersebut telah mengaktifkan aplikasi 'friend finder' yang membolehkan lokasi Si mati dikesan di Pasar Borong Selayang dengan menjejak nombor '017' milik Si mati. Walaupun rakan dari telco tersebut tidak dipanggil memberi keterangan di mahkamah, keterangan SP9 disokong oleh SP5 yang menyatakan beliau (SP5) telah memberikan nombor '017' kepada rakan telco tersebut, dan perkara ini disahkan melalui pencarian yang kemudiannya dilakukan di sekitar Pejabat Pos Selayang. [11] Pasukan mencari dan menyelamat yang terdiri daripada rakan rakan Si mati dan SP5 telah berkumpul dan menuju ke lokasi yang dikenal pasti bersama dan kawasan sekitarnya. SP2 dan SP3 adalah orang pertama yang melihat kereta Grab Si mati di tempat letak kereta Blok C Taman Selayang Makmur dan memaklumkan kepada SP5. SP5 kemudian menghubungi pegawai penyiasat kes ini dan dinasihatkan untuk tidak menghampiri kereta Grab Si mati tetapi mendapatkan bantuan dari balai polis berdekatan. Di sinilah SP5 bertemu dengan Koperal Mohamad Norshazeli bin Mat Nasir (SP1) di pondok polis Selayang Baru. [12] Dengan bantuan SP1 dan rakan sekerjanya, SP5 bersama SP1 pergi ke lokasi sekitar jam 8.00 malam dan mendekati kereta Grab Si mati; tetapi pintu-pintu kereta Grab Si mati didapati berkunci dan enjinnya sejuk. Oleh kerana SP1 tidak dapat melihat apa-apa dari luar, beliau menggunakan lampu motosikalnya untuk menerangi bahagian dalam kereta Grab Si mati dan terlihat satu jasad dalam keadaan kepala di bawah dan kakinya di atas tempat duduk di bahagian belakang tempat duduk pemandu. SP1 telah membuat laporan polis tentang penemuan tersebut dan memaklumkan mengenai perkara tersebut kepada Timbalan Ketua Balai iaitu SI Ranjit Singh a/l Sardara Singh (SP6). [13] SP6 telah pergi ke tempat penemuan kereta Grab Si mati. Oleh kerana semua pintu kereta tersebut berkunci dan untuk memastikan sama ada Si mati masih hidup atau tidak, SP6 telah memanggil nama Si mati tetapi tiada tindak balas. Apabila ambulans tiba, SP6 memecahkan sedikit cermin tingkap belakang kiri untuk membuka pintu agar pasukan perubatan dapat memeriksa Si mati. Setelah diperiksa, mereka mengesahkan Si mati telah meninggal dunia. Telefon bimbit jenis I-phone milik Si mati telah ditemui dalam poket seluar Si mati dan kemudiannya diletakkan di antara kedua-dua kakinya oleh pasukan perubatan. Pasukan forensik yang diketuai oleh Insp. Nor Harman bin Abdul Hamid (SP12) dan pegawai penyiasat DSP Visvanathan a/l Paramasiwan (SP16) tiba di tempat kejadian sekitar jam 10.00 malam pada 23 Jun 2018 dan meneruskan siasatan. Mayat Si mati kemudian dihantar ke Hospital Kuala Lumpur untuk dibedah siasat. Kereta Grab Si mati telah diserahkan kepada Pegawai Sains Dr. Nurhaliza Hassan dari Bahagian DNA Forensik pada 02 Julai 2018 untuk siasatan lanjut. [14] Siasatan diteruskan oleh ASP Agilan a/l Iswaran (SP18) mulai 1 September 2020 berikutan pertukaran SP16 ke Bukit Aman. Hasil Siasatan [15] Berikut adalah antara hasil siasatan SP16 dan SP18 dalam kes ini: a. Berdasarkan laporan kimia (P83) oleh Nor Aidora binti Saedon (SP17) - calitan yang diambil pada tali pinggang keledar pemandu yang dilabelkan sebagai 'K5' menunjukkan: "6. Satu profil DNA campuran dari tiga individu telah diperoleh daripada kayu calitan 'K5'. Profil DNA yang diperoleh daripada spesimen darah 'V36' (dilabelkan sebagai 'Gupreet Singh') dan spesimen tulang 'V8' (dilabelkan sebagai 'Aiman Bin Nosri') adalah konsisten sebagai penyumbang kepada profil DNA campuran ini". b. Punca kematian Si mati menurut pakar perubatan forensik, Dr Nurliza binti Abdullah (SP8) berdasarkan laporan bedah siasatnya (P12) ialah 'Asphyxiation with smothering'. c. Menurut rekod applikasi Grab (P11), nama terakhir yang membuat tempahan dari Jalan Tun Tan Cheng Lock ke Selayang Baru ialah 'Harry Singh' dan bayaran dibuat secara tunai. Nombor IMEI telefon yang digunakan ialah 358447/07/615791/7. [16] Berdasarkan hasil siasatan yang dijalankan, kedua-dua Tertuduh akhirnya ditangkap dan dituduh di Mahkamah Tinggi sepertimana pertuduhan di atas. Di Mahkamah Tinggi [17] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, YA HMT mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap kedua dua Tertuduh. Antara dapatan YA HMT secara ringkasnya adalah seperti berikut: a. Penemuan DNA Tertuduh Kedua pada tali pinggang pemandukereta tersebut adalah paling membuktikan kesalahan (most incriminating) yang menuntut penjelasan dari Tertuduh; b. Berdasarkan keterangan SP8, punca kematian si mati adalah asphyxiation with smothering. Bukan sahaja penekupan pada mulut yang boleh menyebabkan asfiksia tetapi ia juga boleh terjadi akibat jerutan pada leher. Maka, kecederaan di leher menyumbang kepada sesak nafas; c. Berdasarkan analisis DNA, kematian Si mati berlaku pada lebih kurang satu (1) ke dua (2) hari sebelum mayatnya ditemukan iaitu sekitar 21 Jun 2018 atau 22 Jun 2018 sepertimana pertuduhan; d. Kesemua elemen pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan telah dipenuhi; dan e. Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah membunuh Si mati. [18] Kedua-dua tertuduh telah diperintahkan untuk membela diri dan telah memberikan keterangan secara bersumpah. Antara pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua Tertuduh ialah: a. Kedua-dua Tertuduh tidak menafikan bahawa mereka telah menaiki kereta tersebut namun mereka telah turun lebih awal dari "drop off point" yang sepatutnya. b. Notis alibi telah dikemukakan di mahkamah dan ditandakan sebagai ekshibit iaitu D84 dan D86. [19] Secara ringkas, pembelaan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua adalah seperti berikut: -

1 Tertuduh Pertama bekerja sebagai pembantu kedai sayur di Pasar Borong Selayang dengan gaji sekitar RM3,500 sebulan.

2 Tertuduh Pertama pernah datang ke Malaysia sebelum ini secara haram dan ditangkap dan dihantar pulang ke Myanmar. Tertuduh Pertama kemudian berkahwin dan datang semula ke Malaysia secara haram.

3 Tertuduh Pertama mengakui telah ditangkap berkaitan satu kes pembunuhan pemandu Grab dan akui ada menggunakan perkhidmatan kereta Grab Si mati bersama Perayu Kedua/ SD2 (Tertuduh Kedua).

4 Tertuduh Pertama turut mengakui ada menggunakan perkhidmatan Grab tersebut pada 21 Jun 2016 bersama Tertuduh Kedua dan butiran perjalanan diakui dari Kuala Lumpur ke arah Selayang.

5 Pada tarikh tersebut Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua telah pergi ke Kuala Lumpur untuk membeli barang keperluan dan berjalan-jalan sekitar Kuala Lumpur.

6 Tertuduh Pertama mengesahkan bahawa Tertuduh Kedua telah membuat tempahan Grab dengan menggunakan nama 'Harry Singh' sebagai nama akaun Grab Tertuduh Kedua.

7 Semasa perjalanan ke Selayang, isteri Tertuduh Pertama iaitu (SD4) telah beberapa kali menelefon Tertuduh Pertama bertanyakan di manakah Tertuduh Pertama berada ketika itu. Lanjutan daripada itu, Tertuduh Pertama meminta Si mati untuk menurunkannya terlebih dahulu di sebuah perhentian bas berdekatan rumah Tertuduh Pertama.

8 Tertuduh Pertama kemudiannya turun di perhentian bas tersebut dan pulang ke rumah berjalan kaki. Setibanya di rumah kira-kira 9.55, seorang kawan Tertuduh Pertama iaitu (SD3) telah datang ke rumah Tertuduh Pertama untuk menjemputnya ke kenduri beliau.

9 Menurut Tertuduh Pertama, dia tidak tahu apa yang berlakukepada Si mati dan Tertuduh Kedua selepas beliau turun diperhentian bas tersebut.

10 Tertuduh Kedua bekerja sebagai buruh di sekitar Pasar Borong Selayang dengan pendapatan sekitar RM2,000 - RM3,000 sebulan.

11 Pada hari kejadian, Tertuduh Kedua bercuti dan mengajak Tertuduh Pertama untuk ke Kuala Lumpur untuk mencari barang keperluan.

12 Tertuduh Kedua telah pergi ke Kuala Lumpur bersama Tertuduh Pertama dan pulang ke Selayang bersama Tertuduh Pertama dengan menaiki kereta Grab Si mati, Tertuduh Pertama duduk di hadapan dan Tertuduh Kedua duduk di bahagian belakang kereta.

13 Tertuduh Kedua turut menyokong keterangan Tertuduh Pertama bahawa Tertuduh Pertama ada turun di perhentian bas berdekatan dengan rumah Tertuduh Pertama.

14 Tertuduh Kedua kemudiannya turun di kawasan berdekatan Petronas Sg Tua dan pergi ke sebuah restoran mamak untuk berjumpa dengan seorang rakan Tertuduh Kedua bernama Murli.

15 Tertuduh Kedua tidak mengetahui apa yang berlaku kepada Si mati selepas Tertuduh Kedua turun dari kereta Grab Si mati tersebut. [20] Di akhir keseluruhan kes, YA HMT memutuskan bahawa pembelaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan, antara lainnya atas alasan-alasan berikut: a. Notis alibi kedua-dua Tertuduh tidak disokong oleh saksi yang boleh dihubungi atau rakaman CCTV, lalu memerlukan penjelasan lanjut dari kedua-duanya. Walau bagaimanapun, ia gagal dikemukakan oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh; b. Penukaran lokasi turun tidak disokong oleh sebarang keterangan; c. Tiada keterangan menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh Pertama tidak boleh bertutur dalam Bahasa Melayu; d. Tiada keterangan menunjukkan bahawa keterangan keterangan yang ada di tempat kejadian telah dibuat semula (re-enact); e. Pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh bahawa DNA mereka telah diletakkan (planted) pada tali pinggang keledar dan botol dalam kereta tersebut tidak dibuktikan; f. Tertuduh Kedua adalah orang yang duduk di tempat duduk belakang. Tali pinggang keledar dan pakaian Si mati telah digunakan oleh Tertuduh Kedua untuk mencekik dan menghalang kemasukan udara Si mati terlebih dahulu. Apabila Si mati telah kelemasan udara, kedua-dua Tertuduh telah mengalihkan Si mati ke tempat duduk belakang dan menyembunyikannya di situ. [21] Oleh itu, kedua-dua Tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan dengan kesalahan membunuh Si mati sepertimana pertuduhan, seterusnya dijatuhi hukuman gantung sampai mati. Hukuman ini dibuat setelah YA HMT mengambilkira bahawa tiada sebarang pembelaan dikemukakan bagi meringankan hukuman berdasarkan Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 selain daripada keterangan serta fakta yang ada tidak menunjukkan kedua-dua Tertuduh menyesali perbuatan mereka ini. Rayuan ini [22] Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut menerusi dua (2) rayuan sepertimana yang dinyatakan di atas. Kedua-dua rayuan tersebut telah didengar bersekali pada hari yang sama. Setelah meneliti Rekod Rayuan dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, kami memutuskan untuk menolak kedua-dua rayuan atas alasan-alasan yang akan dijelaskan selepas ini. [23] Berdasarkan Petisyen Rayuan dan Hujahan Bertulis yang disediakan oleh peguambela terpelajar bagi pihak Tertuduh-Tertuduh, isu yang dibangkitkan untuk pertimbangan kami dalam rayuan ini, bolehlah diringkaskan seperti berikut: i. Pertuduhan ke atas kedua-dua Tertuduh adalah cacat; ii. YA HMT telah khilaf dalam beberapa dapatan, antaranya: a. Tali pinggang keledar telah digunakan untuk menjerut leher Si mati dan menyebabkan kematianya; b. Kewujudan DNA Tertuduh Kedua pada tali pinggang keledar menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh Kedua yang membuka tali pinggang keledar Si mati; c. Motif pembunuhan adalah rompakan; dan d. Tidak ada cabaran yang 'real and obvious' berkenaan kunci kereta Si mati yang tidak ditemui di lokasi Si mati ditemui. iii. Terdapat DNA yang tidak dapat dikenalpasti dijumpai di dalam kereta tersebut; iv. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil beberapa orang saksi seperti Brar Kulwant Singh, Rahman Gosain dan Inderpal Singh menuntut anggapan di bawah Seksyen 114 ilustrasi (g) Akta Keterangan 1950; v. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi yang ditawarkan iaitu Naomi Shaoba a/p Sundarasaykarum dan Stella Maria a/p Celestine menyebabkan keciciran keadilan; vi. YA HMT telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila membuat dapatan bahawa pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah satu pembelaan yang bersifat 'belated' dan tidak menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pihak Pendakwaan; dan vii. Mahkamah perlu mengambilkira jika rayuan Tertuduh-Tertuduh terhadap sabitan ditolak, maka hukuman terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh seharusnya ditukar daripada hukuman gantung sampai mati kepada satu hukuman penjara dan sebatan yang paling minimum dengan mengambilkira fakta kes ini dan juga berdasarkan kepada Seksyen 34 Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023. Penemuan kami Sama ada intipati pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan telah dipenuhi [24] Setelah meneliti segala keterangan yang dibentangkan di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi, kami mendapati YA HMT adalah betul apabila membuat keputusan yang pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan semua intipati pertuduhan di bawah limb (c) Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan iaitu: a) Mangsa iaitu Aiman bin Nosri, Si mati telah mati; b) Kematian Si mati adalah akibat kecederaan yang dialami oleh Si mati; c) Kecederaan yang dialami oleh Si mati adalah akibat perbuatan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua; d) Perbuatan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua menyebabkan kecederaan terhadap Si mati sehingga menyebabkan kematian Si mati dilakukan dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian Si mati; dan e) Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua mempunyai niat bersama menyebabkan kematian Si mati menurut Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. Mangsa iaitu Aiman bin Nosri, Si mati telah mati [25] Terdapat keterangan yang melimpah yang menunjukkan mangsa yang meninggal dunia adalah Aiman bin Nosri (KP: 910522-14-5681) iaitu Si mati. [26] Fakta ini dapat dibuktikan melalui: -

1 keterangan SP1 hingga SP8 dan SP16;

2 gambar bedah siasat Si mati di tempat kejadian iaitu gambar (P6(1-34)) yang dicetak dari cakera padat P13;

3 laporan bedah siasat Si mati (P12) yang disediakan oleh SP8; dan

4 sijil daftar kematian Si mati (P14) dan Salinan perakuan pegawai perubatan (P15). [27] Kami mendapati isu identiti kematian Si mati ini tidak menjadi pertikaian oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh dan berdasarkan fakta yang dinyatakan di atas, kami mendapati kematian Si mati telah berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan. Kematian Si mati adalah akibat kecederaan yang dialami oleh Si mati [28] SP8, Pegawai Perubatan yang melakukan bedah siasat ke atas Si mati telah menyatakan sebab kematian Si mati adalah sebab "Asphyxiation with smothering". [29] Berdasarkan eksibit P12 yang disediakan oleh SP8 menunjukkan kecederaan pada Si mati antaranya adalah bahagian mulut menunjukkan pembengkakan pada bibir sebelah atas. Terdapat kesan lebam pada bahagian bibir atas sehingga ke gusi. Bahagian dalaman bibir bawah juga menunjukkan kesan lebam. [30] Pemeriksaan bahagian leher didapati kesan lebam berserta darah beku pada otot leher hadapan sebelah kiri. [31] Si mati mengalami kelemasan udara berdasarkan tanda-tanda kongesi pada bahagian muka dan ditekup bahagian muka pada mulut yang menghalang Si mati daripada bernafas. [32] Keterangan SP8 juga menunjukkan bahawa pengumpulan darah pada bahagian kepala memberi gambaran otak dan kepala mengalami keadaan konjeksi iaitu salah satu tanda kelemasan udara (asphyxiation). [33] Menurut SP8 perbuatan menekup muka sehingga menyebabkan sesak nafas adalah dilakukan pihak ketiga dan bukan hasil perbuatan sendiri. Ini kerana perlu adanya fokus daya tekanan atau 'force' pada bahagian mulut yang mempunyai kesan lebam tersebut bagi menyebabkan kelemasan udara berserta tekupan muka sepertimana hasil bedah siasat tersebut. [34] Oleh itu, kami mendapati berdasarkan kepada fakta di atas intipati kedua telah dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan. Kecederaan yang dialami oleh Si mati adalah akibat perbuatan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua [35] Setelah meneliti segala keterangan yang dikemukakan, kami mendapati keterangan yang ada menunjukkan tiada orang lain yang boleh dikaitkan dengan kematian Si mati melainkan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua sebagai orang yang telah mencederakan Si mati yang mana kecederaan itu telah menyebabkan kematian kepada Si mati. [36] Dapatan kami ini adalah berdasarkan kepada fakta yang menunjukkan Kedua-dua Tertuduh adalah merupakan orang yang terakhir menaiki kereta Grab Si mati pada hari kejadian. Tertuduh tertuduh juga tidak menafikan yang mereka telah menempah dan menaiki kereta Grab Si mati pada hari kejadian tersebut. [37] Senior Technical Support di Syarikat Grab, Amartu Rahman bin Amran (SP10) telah memberi keterangan berkenaan tempahan serta pick up point dan drop off point yang mana ia menunjukkan tempoh masa yang bersesuaian dengan masa yang mana Si mati kali terakhir berhubung dengan sesiapa. (Sila rujuk P11-rekod applikasi Grab) [38] Keterangan ini disokong oleh saksi-saksi Pendakwaan lain iaitu SP2, SP3, SP4 dan SP5 berkenaan kali terakhir bercakap dan dapat berhubung dengan Si mati. [39] Telefon bimbit yang digunakan untuk menempah kereta Grab Simati pada hari kejadian juga telah dirampas dan dikemukakan di mahkamah. [40] Fakta ini telah dinyatakan juga oleh YA HMT di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya apabila beliau berkata seperti berikut: [2] After hearing the evidence of the Prosecution, this Court found that the Prosecution has proven a prima facie case that both the accused were in fact travelling in the black MyVi Grab car registration number WRA 8971 driven by the deceased during that material time. This finding was arrived at based on the booking made by one Harry Singh as tendered through P11 (Grab app system) that simultaneously captured the imei number of the handphone that made the said booking on to the Grab app of the deceased. The imei number was found on the handphone seized from the $ ^{1 s t} $ accused at the time of his arrest. [3] The circumstantial evidence all put together, moved this court to a conclusion that both had acted together in committing the murder on the deceased ... " [41] Kami juga mendapati terdapat keterangan sokongan seperti cap jari beserta DNA Tertuduh yang dijumpai di dalam kereta Si mati. Sepertimana yang telah dijelaskan melalui keterangan saksi-saksi Ahli Kimia SP17 dan SP13 yang merupakan Pegawai Polis yang mempunyai profiling cap jari Tertuduh. [42] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh Pertama telah memandu arah polis dan hasil daripada itu penemuan kunci kereta milik Si mati dijumpai. Tertuduh Pertama juga telah menunjukkan tali pinggang keledar (seatbelt) kereta Grab Si mati. [43] Pegawai penyiasat juga telah membuat siasatan menyeluruh termasuk siasatan terhadap Notis Alibi yang dikemukakan kedua-dua Tertuduh. [44] Kami mendapati kesemua keterangan ini menunjukkan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua adalah orang terakhir bersama dengan Si mati pada hari kejadian dan tidak ada sebab mengapa versi yang dibawa oleh pihak Pendakwaan tidak boleh dipercayai kerana berdasarkan kepada fakta yang dikemukakan jelas menunjukkan kedua-dua Tertuduh mempunyai peluang untuk membunuh Si mati kerana terdapat keterangan berlandaskan keadaan (circumstantial evidence) terhadap mereka. [45] Mengenai perkara ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Ahmad Najib bin Aris v Public Prosecutor, [2009] 2 CLJ 800; [2009] 1 MLRA 58; [2009] 2 MLJ 613; telah memutuskan seperti berikut: [45] It must also be noted that the appellant had the opportunity to have committed the crime, (see s 7 and illustration (c) of the Evidence Act 1950] The evidence of opportunity in this case has been supplemented by proof of circumstances of such a nature as to lead to the interference that it was probable that advantage would be taken by the appellant of the opportunity (see Aziz bin Muhamad Din v Public Prosecutor [1966] 5 MLJ 473). The evidence adduced by the prosecution showed that the appellant was seen together with the deceased by the prosecution witnesses, PW4, PW5 and PW12 through the sequence of events taking place at the various locations" (Penekanan ditambah) Perbuatan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua menyebabkan kecederaan terhadap Si mati sehingga menyebabkan kematian si mati dilakukan dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian [46] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa tindakan Tertuduh Pertama dan Tertuduh Kedua menyebabkan kecederaan si mati dilakukan dengan niat di bawah seksyen 300 (c) Kanun Keseksaan; [47] Seksyen 300 (c) Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan seperti berikut: "300. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder-

if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;” [48] Dalam buku Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes (Vol 2) di muka surat 1465 menyatakan seperti berikut: "For the applicability of Section 300 thirdly, the injury caused must be intentional and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The result of intentionally caused injury must be viewed objectively. The intention of the offender can be gathered from force with which the blow was given, weapon used, organ that wastargeted, nature of injury caused, origin and genesis of crime and circumstance attendant upon death. Sometimes the nature of the weapons used, sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is caused, and sometimes both are relevant. The determinant factor is the intentional injury must be sufficient to in the ordinary course of nature. If the intended injury cannot be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, that is to say, the probability of death is not so high, the offence does not fall within murder but within culpable homicide not amounting to murder or something less. Where the prosecution had successfully established that the bodily injury was present on the deceased and nature of the injury as proved by the doctor was sufficient to cause death and there was also intention on part of the appellant. Section 300, clause Thirdly of the Code would be applicable. For the application of this clause it must be proved that there was intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death." [49] Dalam buku yang sama di muka surat 1466 buku tersebut, dinyatakan: "Explaining clause 3 of Section 300, Vivian Bose, J., in the leading case of Virsa Singh AIR 1958 SC 465 observed: "to put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under section 300 "thirdly": - Firstly, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; - Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations; - Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intentional to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended; - Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceed further and; - Fourthly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made upon the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender; - Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under section 300 "thirdly". It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death". [50] Prinsip undang-undang di atas telah digunapakai di Malaysia oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Mohd Yasser bin Shaik Mahmad v. Public Prosecutor [2017] MLRAU 94; [2017] 5 CLJ 44; [2017] 3 AMR 532; [2017] 4 MLJ 250. [51] Dalam kes di hadapan mahkamah ini sekarang, kami mendapati berdasarkan kepada kecederaan pada Si mati sepertimana keterangan SP8 tersebut adalah akibat lemas berserta tekupan pada muka. Perbuatan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua yang menghalang ruang pernafasan yang merupakan daerah sensitif ini jelas menunjukkan niat kedua-dua Tertuduh untuk mendatangkan kecederaan yang mana kecederaan tersebut memadai dan mencukupi dalam keadaan biasa dan lazimnya menyebabkan kematian. [52] Dalam isu ini, kami mendapati YA HMT telah membuat dapatan di perenggan 41, 63 dan 64 di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya, apabila beliau berkata seperti berkut: [41] All these evidences by smothering and followed with further act of confining the body in a closed container that is the car cumulatively would only mean that both the accused knew the victim was already deceased at the time the body was abandon in the Grab car hence would moved this Court to a finding that they had the intention to cause the injuries under limb (c) of section 300 Penal Code: "(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (See: Tham Kai Yau & Ors v PP [1997] 1 MLJ 174 follows)." [63] Based on the pathologist finding of absence of any struggle by the deceased victim with the primary cause of death on the deceased 'asphyxiation by smothering' as extracted from SP8's testimony "si mati mengalami kelemasan udara atau asfiksasi berserta tekupan pada bahagian muka" to this Court's finding only means that the act of both the accused was carried out with an absolute certainty to cause death on the deceased. [64] As earlier ruled, the smothering cannot be at the mouth alone but also the air pathway at the nose and throat or neck as the word 'berserta' used by SP8 and her oral evidence also shows blockage of airway to the neck. These cumulative acts caused asphyxiation. This is corroborated by SP16's evidence in his WS that says the pathologist statement taken shows "sebab kematian adalah asphyxiation with smothering iaitu kelemasan udara berserta mengalami tekup muka". Otherwise, the deceased would still be alive and able to escape or make calls for help." (Penekanan ditambah) [53] Berdasarkan keterangan yang ada, kami berpuas hati terdapat cukup keterangan untuk menyimpulkan bahawa kematian Si mati ini dilakukan oleh Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua dengan niat di bawah Seksyen 300 (c) Kanun Keseksaan melalui kecederaan-kecederaan yang dilakukan ke atas Si mati. Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua mempunyai niat bersama menyebabkan kematian Si mati menurut Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan [54] Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan seperti berikut: "Each of several person liable for an act done by all, in like manner as if done by him alone"

When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone". [55] Peruntukan di bawah seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan mengkehendaki pihak Pendakwaan untuk mengemukakan keterangan sama ada secara langsung atau mengikut keadaan (direct or circumstantial) dan hendaklah sebelum berlakunya sesuatu jenayah itu dan sesuatu jenayah tersebut adalah hasil daripada 'in furtherance of the common intention which presupposes permutation or pre-concept of mind.' [56] Dalam memutuskan isu ini, Mahkamah telah membuat pemerhatian dan kesimpulan daripada keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan. [57] Intipati di bawah seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan diterangkan di dalam Buku Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes (Vol 1) di muka surat 116: - Accused persons physically presence in the scene of crime (not necessary to show some overt act); - There is common intention to commit the crime (common intention is to be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case when there is absence of direct evidence) which implies pre-arranged plan; and - Criminal act was done in concert, pursuant to pre-arranged plan. [58] Berbalik kepada fakta kes ini, mahkamah mendapati terdapat cukup keterangan yang menunjukkan niat bersama Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua dalam kes ini apabila: i. Terdapat kehilangan dompet Si mati; ii. Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua telah menekup muka dan menghalang ruang pernafasan Si mati; iii. Si mati kemudiannya ditinggalkan di bahagian penumpang belakang dengan muka di bawah; iv. Tiada bukti kedua-dua Tertuduh telah turun dari kereta Grab Si mati sebelum butang "complete trip" ditekan; v. Mengikut GPS 'tracking system' Grab menunjukkan pergerakan kereta Grab Si mati ke arah destinasi "drop off point"; vi. Tiada orang lain yang menempah perkhidmatan kereta Grab Si mati selepas kedua-dua Tertuduh; vii. Kereta Grab Si mati dijumpai di kawasan berhampiran arah tuju kedua-dua Tertuduh iaitu di Selayang Baru; viii. Kereta Grab Si mati ditinggalkan dengan Si mati begitu sahaja sehingga kereta Grab Si mati dijumpai oleh ahli keluarga dan rakan-rakan beliau; ix. Terdapatnya pandu arah Tertuduh Pertama akan kunci kereta Grab Si mati di bawah Seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950; dan x. Kelakuan ataupun 'conduct' Tertuduh Pertama yang menunjukkan tali pinggang kereta Si mati yang mempunyai DNA Tertuduh Kedua adalah relevan di bawah Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950. [59] YA HMT telah mengupas isu 'niat bersama' kedua-dua Tertuduh di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya di perenggan 36 dan 38 apabila beliau berkata seperti berikut: - "Murder was committed by both the accused [36] The totality of the prosecution evidence points to an irresistible conclusion that both the accused committed murder against the deceased as firstly, the deceased would have been at the driver seat when he was smothered at his mouth and strangled at his neck, all these led to blockage of air and asphyxiation. SP8 did not find any evidence of a struggle put up by the deceased. The deceased would have been removed from the driver seat and left in a head down position at the back-passenger seat. [38] Aiman's wallet was not recovered thus it could mean that they both had planned to rob the deceased but only Aiman's handphone with Grab app was missing, leaving behind 2. Thus, to this Court's finding, Aimans' wallet was a possible motive to commit murder irrespective of the fact that the other 2 phones were not stolen as the possible explanation was that they both need a quick getaway." Analisis kes pembelaan [60] Secara ringkasnya, kedua-dua Tertuduh mengatakan pada hari kejadian mereka telah turun di dua (2) lokasi yang berbeza. Tertuduh Pertama telah turun di perhentian bas berdekatan dengan rumahnya manakala Tertuduh Kedua telah turun di kawasan berdekatan Petronas Sg. Tua dan selepas itu pergi ke sebuah restoran mamak untuk berjumpa dengan seorang rakan Tertuduh Kedua bernama Murti. [61] Menurut kedua-dua Tertuduh, mereka tidak mengetahui apa yang berlaku kepada Si mati selepas kedua-dua Tertuduh turun dari kereta Grab Si mati. [62] Menurut kedua-dua Tertuduh, pembelaan mereka telah disokong oleh Notis Alibi yang dikemukakan oleh mereka ke mahkamah. [63] Berdasarkan kepada pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua dua Tertuduh, dapat disimpulkan secara ringkasnya seperti berikut: - a. Kedua-dua Tertuduh tidak mempunyai niat untuk membunuh Si mati; dan b. Kedua-dua Tertuduh tidak mempunyai niat bersama membunuh Si mati. [64] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti kesemua keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwaan dan meneliti pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua Tertuduh. Kami bersetuju dengan dapatan yang dibuat oleh YA HMT bahawa pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh telah gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes Pendakwaan i.e. pertuduhan yang telah dikemukakan ke atas kedua-dua Tertuduh. [65] Kami berpuas hati bahawa YA HMT telah membuat penelitian yang teliti dan maksimum terhadap semua keterangan yang dibentangkan di hadapannya, termasuk keterangan pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh dan saksi-saksi pembelaan dan setelah menilai kebolehpercayaan serta kredibiliti kesemua saksi tersebut, telah menerima keterangan saksi Pendakwaan seterusnya menolak keterangan saksi-saksi pembelaan. [66] YA HMT mempunyai kelebihan audio visual di dalam menilai keterangan dan kredibiliti saksi-saksi. Oleh itu, kami tidak nampak mengapa dapatan YA HMT tersebut harus diganggu oleh mahkamah ini. [67] Ini jelas dapat dilihat daripada penelitian, huraian, dan dapatan yang dibuat oleh YA HMT dalam Alasan Penghakimannya mengenai isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh kedua-dua Tertuduh seperti berikut: - a) Isu mengenai kewujudan DNA [15] The defence argued that it was only after about 10 days before the car was handed to Nurhaliza thus the car, having been accessed by many others had been tampered with. In addition, it was suggested to SP16 that both the accused had been brought to the said car and were directed to re-enact their presence in the said car by touching parts of the car mentioning specifically the seatbelt that caused DNA tracing belonging to them, collected at various spots. [16] This Court is of the view that the only incriminating DNA crucial to this case that requires some explanation from either of them is the DNA of the $ 2^{n d} $ accused found on the driver's seatbelt as firstly, the body of the deceased driver was found in a head-down position in the backpassenger seat behind the driver thus someone must have moved the body from the driver's seat, to the present spot there. There were also present the $ 1^{s t} $ and $ 2^{n d} $ accused's DNAs on the bottles and this evidence although may initially appear neutral as both did not deny being present in the said car, a scrutiny of this evidence is crucial and will be discussed at a later part of the judgment. The DNA of the 2nd accused found on the driver's seatbelt is the most incriminating evidence that invites some explanation from the accused. [20] The swab at the seatbelt was taken by the science officer Nurhaliza and an examination by SP17, the chemist found the DNA of the $ 2^{n d} $ accused Gupreet Singh on the said seatbelt. This Court could not accept the suggestion by the defence that both the accused were asked to re-enact the scene by touching parts of the car but from the list of tracing annexed by Nurhaliza and handed to SP17 (see 2nd p of P82), the list as confirmed by SP16 (IO) and SP17, no other DNA finding was suggested by the defence, as alleged that was said was directed and dictated by SP16 to be taken from any particular spots such as the steering wheel, the car door or the handbrake that would suggest the DNA samples of both the accused were found on these spots as a result of the recreation of the scene by the police. The non-calling of the scientific officer caused no prejudice as there are other evidence to suggest the challenge by the defence of the planted DNA could not be supported (See: Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals [2017] 4 CLJ 137 Federal Court) at page 178. [22] SP16 (IO) denied both the accused were brought to the car for the purpose of planting their DNA on it prior to the handing of the car to the science officer Dr. Nurhaliza. Hence, the presence of the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ accused's DNA on the driver's seatbelt must have arisen from the fact that he had unfastened it to remove the body of the deceased from the driver's seat, prior to parking the said car at that location. Otherwise, there is no other way his DNA could make its way there." b) Isu mengenai pertuduhan yang dikatakan cacat dan tidak sempurna i. Pihak pembelaan mendakwa bahawa pertuduhan adalah cacat dan tidak sempurna kerana masa pertuduhan iaitu 10.08 malam adalah masa di mana "trip completed". ii. YA HMT telah mengupas isu ini di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya dan kami tidak nampak bagaimana dapatan YA HMT tersebut harus diganggu apabila beliau menyatakan seperti berikut: - "Time of death and charged framed [25] As to the DNA analysis, other swab sticks K6, K7 and K8 taken from the back, left and right part of the driver seat came back with the result 'no or mixed DNA which cannot be positively identified or weak/inconclusive DNA'. The pathologist found the deceased to have died at an estimated time of 1-2 days from the date of the discovery of his body. The pathologist report P12 would indicate the deceased was 'Brought In Dead on 24 June 2018 at 1.00 hours'. [26] The evidence of SP16 (IO) shows the body was traced in the Grab car on23 June 2018 and confirmed Aiman was no longer breathing. This is similarly noted in the summary of P12 that the body of the deceased was found in the MyVi car on 23 June 2018. Thus, rightly so, the calculation of 1-2 days from 23 June 2018 would roughly lock in the time that the act of murder happened between 21 June 2018 or 22 June 2018 as per the charge. [27] The IO SP16 in his WS said that SP8 in her statement recorded by SP16 during investigation said the time of death to be 2-3 days from the date the post-mortem was held which was on 24 June 2018 at 1400 hrs. This similarly would have also locked in the time of death to have occurred within the time stipulated as framed in the charge as 21 June 2018." c) Isu mengenai pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh yang mereka telah turun terlebih dahulu di dua (2) lokasi yang berbeza. i. YA HMT telah meneliti dan membuat penilaian mengenai pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh dan telah membuat dapatan seperti berikut: - "Defence of both: they alighted earlier than the actual drop-off point [33] As highlighted earlier, the findings of both the accused's DNA on the bottles in the said Grab car can invite a suggestion that it is a neutral evidence and merely supports the finding of their presence in that car. On the other hand, with this added finding of their presence in the said car, both the accused put forward the defence that they both had alighted earlier than the actual drop-off point 'Selayang Baru', contrary to the first booking made in P11 and therefore they were not the last person with Aiman and could not have caused Aiman's death. [34] Firstly, this Court finds this puzzling as if both had wanted to get down separately elsewhere as contended by the defence instead of the actual dropoff point that was determined when the booking was made as in P11, then what made them enter the said 'actual drop-off point' at the point booking was made but then both had made up their mind to alight the car at 2 different spots than the actual drop-off point? The 'last GPS ping' based on SP7's evidence is a system used to track the GPS location from the driver's Grab app and as indicated is shown at Post Office Selayang. [35] To this Court's finding, this defence invites an inference that both had absconded and wanted to distance themselves from the said car, more so this app booking being the last recorded by SP7. With the finding that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ accused had pointed to the seatbelt of the driver and the 2nd accused's DNA was confirmed found on it, all these put together amount to confirmation by the subsequent fact that the seatbelt is relevant to show that it had been used in the commission of the actus reus of causing the death of the deceased, and with the pathologist's finding that the neck suffered from injuries that suggest blood contusion arising from air blockage, this Court concluded that in the absence of any reasonable explanation, both the accused had acted in common intention to cause the said injuries on the deceased that led to his demise." d) Isu sama ada kedua-dua Tertuduh membunuh Si mati i. Perkara ini juga telah disentuh oleh YA HMT di dalam Alasan Penghakiman apabila beliau menyatakan seperti berikut: - "Murder was committed by both the accused [36] The totality of the prosecution evidence points to an irresistible conclusion that both the accused committed murder against the deceased as firstly, the deceased would have been in the driver's seat when he was smothered and strangled, all these led to blockage of air and asphyxiation. SP8 did not find any evidence of a struggle put up by the deceased. The deceased would have been removed from the driver's seat and left in a head-down position in the back-passenger seat. [38] Aiman's wallet was not recovered thus it could mean that they both had planned to rob the deceased but only Aiman's handphone with the Grab app was missing, leaving behind 2. Thus, to this Court's finding, Aiman's wallet was a possible motive to commit murder irrespective of the fact that the other 2 phones were not stolen as the possible explanation was that they both needed a quick getaway. [41] All these evidence by smothering and followed with the further act of confining the body in a closed container that is the car cumulatively would only mean that both the accused knew the victim was already deceased at the time the body was abandoned in the Grab car hence would move this Court to a finding that they had the intention to cause the injuries under limb (c) of s 300 Penal Code: "(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (See: Tham Kai Yau & Ors v. PP [1977] 1 MLJ 174 follows)." e) Isu mengenai kegagalan pihak Pendakwaan memanggil saksi-saksi: i. Pihak Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah menyatakan YA HMT telah khilaf apabila gagal mengambil kira inferens di bawah Seksyen 114 ilustrasi (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap Pendakwaan kerana gagal memanggil penama Brar Kulwant Singh dan Inderpal Singh untuk memberi keterangan di mahkamah sedangkan mereka adalah saksi penting; ii. Setelah meneliti keterangan yang dikemukakan di dalam kes ini, kami mendapati kegagalan pihak Pendakwaan memanggil saksi-saksi yang berkenaan ke mahkamah tidak mewajarkan anggapan di bawah Seksyen 114 ilustrasi (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 digunakan ke atas pihak Pendakwaan. iii. Oleh itu, kami bersetuju dengan dapatan YA HMT apabila beliau berkata di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya seperti berikut: - "Arrest of other suspects [43] SP16 conceded that there were other suspects arrested but they were subsequently released having been satisfied there were without any link to the deceased's murder. These suspects based on the chemist report P83 are without any finding of DNA tracing in the car to indicate their presence. These suspects are as follows: a) Umaidah Yusuf b) Raman Gosain c) Brar Kulwant Singh d) Inderpal Singh Darjeet Singh [44] This Court is of the finding that with P83 having excluded these suspects from being present in the said crime scene, there is no evidence to suggest their involvement save that they were either the alibi witness or the names arose from the questioning of the prime suspects Sua Lay and Gupreet Singh but with no value added. Even if an unknown DNA of a third person was present in one of the swabs, this does not exclude the presence of both the accused in the said car." f) Isu mengenai penemuan kunci kereta i. Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah mengatakan YA HMT telah terkhilaf apabila menerima masuk maklumat berkaitan penemuan kunci kereta dalam kes ini di bawah Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950; ii. Kami mendapati YA HMT telahpun memberi alasan kepada keputusannya mengapa penemuan tersebut diterima masuk sebagai keterangan sama ada di bawah Seksyen 8 atau 27 Akta Keterangan 1950 apabila beliau menyatakan sepertimana berikut: - "Section 27 leading to the discovery of the car key [45] In the cause of adducing evidence of either leading to the discovery of the car key by the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ accused based on information received under s 27 or conduct under s 8 of the Evidence Act 1950, 4 main objections arose from the defence as follows: i. There was no caution as suggested under s 27 administered to the accused prior to him providing the information under s 27; ii. The information is inadmissible it being a confession and a trial within a trial must be held to determine its admissibility; iii. Even with the confession aside, the information does not make any sense and remains inadmissible as a confession; iv. There was doubt that there was such discovery as the police officer said to have followed the $ 1^{st} $ accused leading to said car key was uncertain of the exact spot the key was recovered. [46] The prosecution on the other hand argued that it is not a confession and is still admissible under s 27 or alternatively, it comes under evidence of conduct under s 8. This Court having heard arguments, similarly agreed that based on case authorities of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor [1947] 74 IA 65 that words amounting to confession ought to be expunged, this exercise is aimed with the purpose that a s 27 evidence is not to admit a confession through the back door. [47] The information transmitted to SP14 and reduced into writing by way of a police report Selayang Report 0139118/18 shows the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ accused had given information as follows: "OKT kemudian mengaku di hadapan saya — Tuan, saya boleh tunjuk itu kunci kereta, itu hari saya kereta kunci dan buang itu kunci kereta dekat sana juga". [49] As earlier highlighted on the application of s 24 Evidence Act, s 112 CPC or s 37A DDA and in this case when dealing with information leading to the pointing of the seatbelt, a similar stand is again taken by this Court in dealing with the discovery of the car key. Firstly, just because the word 'mengaku' was used in P40, it does not mean the information amounts to a total confession as s 27 in itself permits some degree of confession. Hence words like 'saya buang kunci' is admissible based on the case of San Soo Ha v. PP [1968] 1 MLJ 34 where Azlan Shah J said as follows: "It is established law that such words as "I have concealed," "I have hidden," "I have kept" are admissible in evidence as evidence as coming within the purview of s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (see Rama v. State AIR [1952] Bom 299)." [51] In short, it means a trial within a trial is not necessary to determine the admissibility of the information obtained under s 27 of the Evidence Act 1950. The prosecution is under no obligation to prove voluntariness of the information given. Be that as it may, unlike in this present case before this Court where oral evidence of the information was adduced by SP14, in Amathevelli the Federal Court found that there was none but merely a recorded information in P51 produced which the Federal Court said was insufficient as the recorded document could be utilised only to refresh memory or as corroboration. For this reason, the s 27 evidence was admitted under s 8 of the same Act, instead." g) Isu mengenai pembelaan alibi; i. Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah mengadu bahawa YA HMT telah terkhilaf apabila membuat dapatan bahawa tiada keterangan yang telah menyokong pembelaan alibi yang dikemukakan Tertuduh-Tertuduh. ii. Kami mendapati YA HMT telah dengan panjang lebar mengulas mengenai isu pembelaan alibi ini di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya apabila beliau berkata seperti berikut: - "Defence of alibi [53] The evidence from SP18 (replacement IO who took over the investigation from SP16 from the beginning of 1 September 2020) was aware of the notice of alibi D84 dated 3 March 2022 (for the $ 2^{nd} $ accused) and D86 dated 26 August 2020 (for the $ 1^{st} $ accused), did his investigation on both the alibi notices D84 and D86. D84 states the $ 2^{nd} $ accused was not at the scene at the time as proffered in the charge but had alighted at a Petronas Sungai Tua. The $ 1^{st} $ accused alibi named his wife Umaidah as alibi who, based on D86 was at home at No 68 Tingkat 3, Komp. Pasar Borong Jalan 2/3A off KM12, Jalan Ipoh Batu Caves when the $ 1^{st} $ accused arrived. D86 also said a friend of the $ 1^{st} $ accused by the name of Adam Yunus was at the said home waiting for the $ 1^{st} $ accused from 9.55pm and stayed on until 10.30 pm. [54] As to SP18's investigation on D84, he testified that in 2021, he met with the manager of the petrol station by the name of Mr Sayuthi, and was given access to the CCTV but as the saving of the recording was just up to a period of 14 days, only the current recording was available. Thus, nothing came out of this alibi. As to D86, SP18 said the 2 names could not be traced at the 2 addresses given. SP18 testified that in the cause of the investigation conducted earlier which saw the statement of Umaidah taken, SP18 made the attempt to contact her on the said number given in her statement but failed. [55] The defence challenged SP18's evidence as no diary was tendered to corroborate his story. This Court did not agree that the absence of the investigation diary made SP18's testimony doubtful. The reason for this finding is that despite D86 not carrying any particulars of the handphone number of Umaidah, SP18 made the necessary effort to trace her at the said phone number that was provided in her statement but failed. This moves this Court to rule that SP18 has nothing to hide and that he is a credible and honest witness. [56] The approach taken by this Court above in analysing SP18's testimonies in order to rule the credibility of the alibi defence and the credibility of SP18 himself is supported by the decision of the Federal Court in Pathmanabhan Nalliannenn v. PP & Other Appeals [2017] 4 CLJ 137 which states that "the correct approach is to consider the alibi in the light of all the evidence in the case and the court's impressions of the witnesses and from that totality to decide whether the alibi might reasonably be true." [57] This Court is of the view that with no alibi witnesses contactable and no CCTV recording present to enable this Court to come to a finding of credibility as emphasized by Pathmanabhan's case, some form of explanation should be offered by both the accused as to why a different spot of the 'actual dropoff point' was entered when booking for Grab on P11, but ended with both deciding to get down elsewhere, separately. [58] None was offered. This Court is of the further view that this defence of 2 split drop-off points to a certain extent goes against the defence's challenge of the s 27 or s 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 by protesting that both could not comprehend Bahasa Melayu. This defence goes against the defence's contention that the evidence of SP14 that the accused gave certain information in Bahasa Melayu is illogical. This Court finds that such suggestion by the defence contradicted the defence's contention that both the accused could not comprehend Bahasa. [59] In the first place, for both to do that would require some communication with the deceased driver Aiman. Otherwise, how would the deceased be alerted and notified of the change of venues by both, where to stop and how payment was to be made or if there was any sum to be refunded and how much. This Court therefore concludes that both the accused could understand Bahasa and were able to communicate in this language even if not eloquently. However, whether both did get down at 2 different locations will only be determined by this Court at the defence stage, as at present these 2 stops merely remain a suggestion not supported by the defence's own testimonies (see: Ali Basher v. PP [2015] 1 CLJ 918 COA)." iii. Isu mengenai alibi ini juga telah dihurai dengan lebih lanjut oleh YA HMT selanjutnya di perenggan 87 hingga 93 Alasan Penghakiman YA HMT. h) Isu mengenai pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh i. Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah mengatakan yang YA HMT telah terkhilaf apabila gagal mengambilkira bahawa pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua Tertuduh adalah satu pembelaan yang kredibel dan pembelaan yang dikemukakan telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes Pendakwaan. ii. Kami telah meneliti Alasan Penghakiman YA HMT dan mendapati YA HMT telah dengan terperinci dan panjang lebar menghuraikan mengenai pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh sepertimana yang terdapat di perenggan 66 hingga 86 Alasan Penghakimannya. iii. Setelah membaca dan meneliti alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan oleh YA HMT, kami tidak nmpak bagaimana dapatan beliau tersebut harus diganggu oleh mahkamah ini. [68] Berdasarkan apa yang dinyatakan di atas, kami berpuas hati bahawa keterangan pembelaan kedua-dua Tertuduh telah gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes pihak pendakwaan dan pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes terhadap kedua-dua Tertuduh melampaui keraguan munasabah. [69] Oleh yang demikian, kami mendapati Tertuduh Pertama dan Tertuduh Kedua bersalah dan mengekalkan sabitan kedua-dua Tertuduh dengan pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan sepertimana yang dijatuhkan oleh YA HMT. Rayuan Kedua-dua Tertuduh terhadap sabitan adalah dengan ini ditolak. Hukuman [70] Kami mendapati perbuatan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua membunuh Si mati yang bekerja mencari nafkah daripada pendapatan yang halal dan bersih iaitu sebagai pemandu Grab adalah perbuatan melampau dan tidak bertimbang rasa. [71] Kejadian ini menyebabkan kegemparan kepada orang awam dan telah mendapat liputan meluas media apabila mayat Si mati ditemui sehinggalah kes dibicarakan dan diputuskan di Mahkamah Tinggi. [72] Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua sebagai warganegara asing yang bekerja di Malaysia sepatutnya menghormati kedaulatan undang-undang Malaysia, sebaliknya melakukan jenayah bunuh yang kejam terhadap Si mati yang tidak berdosa. [73] Mengenai isu hukuman ini, YA HMT di perenggan 94 hingga 98 dalam Alasan Penghakimannya telah menyatakan seperti berikut: - The suitable sentence: death or imprisonment by virtue of the new law [94] In line with the new Act passed by Parliament on the abolition of the mandatory death sentence (Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023) giving the discretion as to what suitable sentence should be passed on the convicted person, the prosecution acting under s 183A of the Criminal Procedure Code invited the mother of the deceased to address this Court on the impact the murder committed against her son had on her and her family. This Court viewed this as suitable and permitted by the provisions of the law and allowed it. Similarly, Counsel for both the accused were invited to address this Court in mitigation as to what the appropriate sentence from their perspective, should be. [95] After hearing all the parties, this Court concludes that the existence of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act does not in any way preclude this Court from the cornerstone of the sentencing principles of retribution, deterrence and prevention. Based on this analysis, the reason for imposing the death sentence is not only did they both commit the murder but the body was left dumped in the said car in a head-down position and both the car and body were abandoned at a location, added with the deceased's phone with the Grab app on it removed from his possession and the app being disconnected had made tracing very unlikely (even if the said phone was never recovered), the missing wallet of the deceased, all these aggravated the acts of both the accused. [96] The utmost importance is that it is not a case where recognised defences provided by the law come into play such as provocation or sudden fight but a murder done with a motive of robbery. This does not mean this Court has closed its mind from exercising the alternative sentence of imprisonment under the new Act in suitable cases. Another example where such exercise of discretion may be more suited is where there may be a thin line between legal and medical insanity that would make the alternative sentence of imprisonment more suitable than mandatory death. [97] Furthermore, in this present case, there is no defence put forth by both in their submissions that goes toward mitigation in seeking for a more lenient sentence than death. Based on this Court's deduction, their inconsistent defence at the prosecution stage even with the s 51A CPC documents served on them by the DPP which even goes to the extent of denying making the Grab booking despite being in possession of a handphone with the IMEI number as reflected in the Grab document P11 but the defence version was then altered halfway does not portray any feeling of remorse on their part. [98] Although it is the fundamental principle of 'innocent before proven guilty' that the defence rightly so is relying on, the s 51A CPC on disclosure and discovery must equally be intertwined with whatever defence both the accused proposed to pin on in the trial. Otherwise, the existence of these rules and procedures is merely cosmetic, without any foundation to tie or attach parties to, in the conduct of the trial. Having sight of the article 'Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Bill 2023 And Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Bill 2023' by Hisyam Teh Poh Teik in [2023] 3 MLJ (i-Ixxvii) and having determined that not all of these relevant points as laid out by this Court were addressed to satisfy the deviation from imposing such sentence except for those factors, this Court ordered for the death sentence to be imposed, the mandatory manner of execution is still death by hanging, against both." [74] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, kami bersependapat dengan penemuan dan keputusan oleh YA HMT mengenai hukuman tersebut. Rayuan Tertuduh Pertama dan Kedua terhadap hukuman adalah dengan ini ditolak. Kesimpulan [75] Kami mendapati sabitan dan hukuman ke atas kedua-dua Tertuduh adalah selamat dan kami dengan ini mengekalkan hukuman gantung sampai mati yang dikenakan oleh YA HMT ke atas kedua-dua Tertuduh. Bertarikh: 21 April 2025 Ahmad Kamal Bin Md Shahid Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Pihak-pihak yang hadir: Bagi pihak tertuduh-tertuduh: Dato' Rajpal Singh (bersama dengan Cik Siti Anis binti Che Abd Wahab) (Tetuan Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu) Bagi pihak Pendakwa Raya: TPR Puan Solehah Noratikah binti Ismail (Jabatan Peguam Negara)