Did the prosecution fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Question

Accepted Answer

The High Court ruled that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Yes. The High Court acquitted four police officers for the second time in the murder case of N. Dharmendran, who died in custody in 2013, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge found there was doubt in the prosecution’s case and that the evidence was mostly circumstantial.
The charge and the court’s standard of proof
The officers were charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, a provision that carries a death sentence. When delivering the judgment in Kuala Lumpur, High Court judge Datuk Kamardin Hashim ruled that the prosecution did not meet the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge found doubt and relied on circumstantial evidence
Defence lawyer Gobind Singh Deo said the judge held there were doubts, leading to the acquittal. He also said the judge found the prosecution’s case was mostly based on circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof.
The court accepted the accused had a valid defence
Gobind said the judge accepted that the accused had a valid defence. He also stated the judge treated the matter as not one where the accused were merely raising a bare denial.
Dharmendran’s death in custody and the EAIC report
N. Dharmendran, who was detained for attempted murder, complained of chest pains and collapsed at around 4.25pm on May 21, 2013 while in a police lock-up. An Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission report said Dharmendran was beaten to death during a violent interrogation, with 52 blunt force trauma bruises and staple wounds in his ears.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did the prosecution fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends