Trial for murder of navy
cadet ‘tainted’, says ex-
UPNM students’ lawyer
Hisyam Teh Poh Teik tells the Federal Court a chief instructor had coached witnesses into giving evidence unfavourable to the accused.
Lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said a person known as Major Zarizal had interfered by guiding the testimony of two key witnesses at the trial, Ahmad Senabil Mohamad and Syafiq Abdullah.
“We urge this court to evaluate the evidence of the two witnesses as their testimonies are tainted,” the senior lawyer told a three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim.
Also on the bench hearing the appeal were Justices Nordin Hassan and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.
Appellants Akmal Zuhairi Azmal, Azamuddin Sofi, Najib Razi, Afif Najmudin Azahat, Shobirin Sabri and Hakeem Ali are seeking to set aside their conviction for Zulfarhan’s murder by the Court of Appeal.
Hisyam said Senabil had under cross-examination admitted to being coached by Zarizal.
“He admitted that Zarizal called him and other potential witnesses,” said Hisham, who is appearing for Najib.
Hisyam said the law clearly states that, whenever there is interference, an adverse inference must be drawn in favour of the accused.
“In our case, there was coaching not to give evidence in favour of the appellants,” he said.
Hisyam said the Court of Appeal had committed a serious error of law and fact by sentencing the appellants to death for murder.
He said the ruling amounted to a failure of justice.
“No prima facie case was established in the trial against Najib for him to enter defence for murder. However, he was finally convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” he added.
Counsel Hamdan Hamzah, appearing with Hisyam, submitted that Najib did not stamp a hot iron on the deceased. The prosecution had also failed to prove there was a common intention among the appellants to murder Zulfarhan.
Both lawyers said their clients were entitled to an acquittal.
In allowing the prosecution’s appeal last year, the Court of Appeal said the prosecution had proved that the six appellants had committed murder beyond reasonable doubt.
They were charged with murdering Zulfarhan at UPNM’s Jebat hostel on May 22, 2017.
However, the High Court in 2021 reduced the murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced them to 18 years in prison.
Zulfarhan was assaulted by his peers non-stop for two days, from May 21 to 22, 2017, for allegedly stealing Akmal’s laptop.
The deceased had suffered 90 injuries all over his body and 30% to 50% burns.
He died at Serdang Hospital on June 1, 2017.
Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad, representing Akmal and Azamuddin, submitted that pathologist Dr Salmah Arshad could not conclusively state if the deceased’s death was due to septicaemia or bronchopneumonia.
He said the defence had called another expert, Dr Rohayu Shahar, to rebut Salmah’s opinion.
“When there is conflicting evidence before the court, it is trite law that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused,” he said.
Amer said the Court of Appeal had failed to properly evaluate Salmah’s evidence and also denied the defence that it had created doubt that the murder charge was proven.
The lawyer said Rohayu was a more competent and experienced witness as she had given evidence in many criminal cases.
“Salmah has not testified in a murder trial other than in this case,” he added.
Lawyer Hazman Ahmad, representing Shobrin, urged the bench to consider Section 38 of the Penal Code which provides that where several persons are engaged in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences.
He said his client had played a minimal role in the entire episode.
Counsel Zambry Idrus, representing Hakeem, said the deceased could have succumbed to the Steven Johnson syndrome, and that the death may have been the result of an antibiotic prescribed by a doctor.
Their lawyers urged the court to restore the High Court’s conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code which carried a jail term of up to 30 years.
Counsel M Ramachelvam, acting for Afif, said his client had no intention of causing Zulfarhan’s death. At best, he should be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code, which carries a jail term of up to 10 years.
“The deceased died about 10 days after the incident,” he added.
The prosecution, led by K Mangai, will make its submissions on Feb 28.
No comments:
Post a Comment