Friday, 24 May 2013

The murder of Sosilawati and company at Banting in 2010: Full Judgement

I am greatly satisfied with the outcome of the trial, justice has prevailed and kudos to the PDRM and the AG's Chamber for a job well done, its never easy to prosecute a trial without the bodies of the victims of the heinous crime.

Semuga ALLAH memberkati Roh-Roh Allahyarham dan Allahyarhamah. Alfatihah.


Following is the 15-page judgement by Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir

The decision at the end of the whole case.


In criminal proceedings the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution throughout to prove the charge against the accused. The accused bears absolutely no burden of proof and need only raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. The standard of proof which the prosecution needs to satisfy at the end of the whole case is to proof its case beyond reasonable doubth. The concept of proof beyond reasonable douth as well as what amounts to reasonable doubth has beena subject of discussion in numerous cases. The courts in these cases have expounded these concept in detail. I have taken note and have been guided by this various expositions.


A common feature in considering the various authorities is the fact that it is the Judge after evaluating all the evidence in the case who is left ultimately with the responsibility of determining whether the require standard of proof has been achieved.

At the end of the whole case it is the duty of the Judge to evaluate the evidence of the defence individually as well as comparing it against the evidence led by the prosecution. In evaluating the defence the court has to consider the evidence of the accused as well as witnesses called by the accused. In this case all the accused chose to give evidence under oath and were duly cross examined by the prosecution as well as the other co-accused. Similarly all the other witnesses called were subject to cross examination by the prosecution as well as by the other co-accused. This is in compliance with the Evidence Act.


For purposes of delivering my decision today I thought it fit to begin with by recapitulating the evidence led by the prosecution in this case. The prosecution’s evidence should correctly start with the evidence of the journey undertaken by Sosilawati and company around noon of 30/8/2010. The evidence of this journey was given by the family members of Sosilawati and comapny. The intended destination of Sosilawati as toldto family members was to meet a lawyer for the purposes of bringing forward the payment of 2 cheques issued by the lawyers law firm. The lawyer whom Sosilawati intended to meet was the 1st accused.

The prosecution then through telecommunication records charted the journey of Sosilawati and company to Banting the final location of the journey according to the records being a farm which was later proved to beling to the 1st accused.

The prosecution further sought to prove that Sosilawati and company had failed to return back from Banting and also not responding to phone calls. As it was not normal for Sosilawati and company not to inform of their whereabouts to family members the family members were concerned as to what had happened to then. This concerned prompted the family members to lodge police reports.

Acting upon this report and in carrying out further investigations the police zeroed on to the farm belonging to the 1st accused and arrested 5 people including the 2nd to 4th accused on 9/9/2010.

initial investigations at the farm had not revealed anything incriminating or tangible. The breakthrough came on the 12/9/2010 when based on the information given by 3 of the arrested persons including the 2nd and 4th accused the police revisited the farm.

On this occation based on the information given especially by the 2nd and 4th accused the police discovered a burnt patch at the back of the farm. On digging the burnt spot the police unearthed bones whereby some of the bones were later confirmed by the expert to be human bones. The experts also confirmed the bones were charred showing the bones to be burnt to very high degree of temperature.

Further investigations at the farm revealed an area with presences of blood spots and a cricket bat also having traces of blood. On analysis of the blood by the chemist it was found that the blood matched with some members of Sosilawati and company.

An inference could be drawn from this facts that something untoward had happened to Sosilawati and company on the farm. This fact was bolstered by the evidence of SP33 that she had heard woman screaming on 30/810 at the farm as well had seen fire as high as the neighbouring oil palm trees.

The 2nd and 4th accused gave information which led the police to out of the farm and to various spots in Banting as well as the area Subang Jaya. From these places the police found the cars in which Sosilawati and company had gone to Banting to meet the 1st accused. The police also recovered at the bottom of rivers handphones and watches identified by family members to belong to the some members of Sosilawati and company.

The police were further on the information given by the arrested persons including the 2nd and 4th accused led to discovery of burnt logs and burnt zinc sheets. some of the sinc sheets bore traces of blood. The blood found on the zinc sheets matched to a member of Sosilawati and company. The presence of logs at the farm was also alluded to by SP33 when she saw the farm hands including the 3rd accused unloading the logs a day earlier.

In this case I also considered the evidence of the 2 arrested persons SP29 and SP59 who had earlier pleaded guilty to disposing evidence. SP29 had pleaded guilty to disposing the ashes of Sosilawati and company whereas SP59 had pleaded guilty to burning the bodies of Sosilawati and comapny. I has accepted this admissions by SP29 and SP59 as a corroboratuve factor as to what had happened to Sosilawati and company at the farm together with all the other evidence which I have outlined earlier. I had also made a ruling based on the admissions of SP29 and SP59 in the magistrate’s court their eveidence to the contrary before me was not worth of any credit.

I have recapitulated the prosecution’s evidence here in answer to the submissions of the defence which seems to indicate that there was no evidence against the 4 accuse apart from the admissions of SP29 and SP59. Further the counsels have hinted that I might have been influenced in calling for the defence of the 4 accused becuase of the media hype surrouding this case.

I wish to reiterate here that a Judge in decidinf a matter faces more danger of influenc from an eloquent defence counsel or a relentless prosecutor. Both skillfully divert the court’s attention to factors which favour them but blissfully ignore the factors that goes against their case of theory.

In my mind a Judge has to be equally wary of the eloquent lawyer and a relentless prosecutor as he has to be wary of the media. The Judge’s focus should be always towards the entire evidence adduced in the case and nothing else. I must also add the Judge should not be influenced by emotion or personal glory in deciding a case. I decided this case with htese precautions in mind.


In evaluating the defence I thought it proper begin with the evidence of the accused themselves. Although the accused have no burden places upon them they nevertheless hav a duty to put forward facts explaining away the evidence as forwarded by the prosecution against them. Their failure to do give any reasonable explanation can render their evidence to be brushed off as being a mere denial and insufficient to raise a reasonable doubth or any doubth at all.

Towards this end I 1st considered the evidence of the 1st accused. The 1st accused at the beginning of his eveidence traced his movements on the evening of 30/8/2010 by saying that he had gone to his mother’s house and also had gone with an estate agent to see some lands to purchase. There is nothing sinister of or untoward of this action by the 1st accused.

The 1st accused then testified that at 8.30 pm the 4th accused had drove him to meet a friend at Subang Jaya. The evidence of the prosecution as wll as the friend he met SP61 supports the contention of the 2st accused that he had in fact met the friend at around 10.30 pm in Subang Jaya.

The 1st accused hwoever found no support of his evidence that he had gone to Subang Jaya with the 4th accused as the 4th accused testified that he did not leave the farm the night of 30/8/2010. The 4th accused also denied driving the 1st accused to Subang jaya. This denial of the 4th accused supports the case of the prosecution that the 1st accused had actually gone to Subang jaya driving one of the cars belonging to Sosilawati and company. This is furhter strengthened by the fact that the car was recovered not far from the sport where the 1st accused had met his friend.

The 1st accused further denied of meeting Sosilawati on the night or evening of 30/8/2010 at the farm or anywhere else and therefor distanced himself from whatever had befallen upon them. This portion of the evidence was supported by the evidence of the 2nd and 3rd accused. The 2nd and 3rd accused further contended that nothing untoward happened on the night of 30/8/2010 or the next day. On the morning fo the 31/8/2010 the 2nd accused said he had gone to his grandmother’s house. The 3rd accused said the next day he carried out his routine work.

The me the denial of the 1st accused of meeting Sosilawati on 30/8/2010 runs counter to the evidence fo Sosilawati’s daughter that she was specifically informed by Sosilawati that she was going to Banting to meet the 1st accused over the clearance of the 2 cheques. The issuance of the 2 cheques supports their existence. Sosilawati’s daughter had no axe to grind with the 1st accused or the other accused for wanting to lie on this matter. The undisputed fact was that Sosilawati had gone to Banting with her driver.

Similarly the other family members had nothing to hide in testifying that their husbands had followed Sosilawati as a call of their duty. It is again udisputed that the lawyer and banker had often acted as advisors of Sosilawati. For them to follow Sosilawati to Banting is again not implausible and in fact has been proven by the various telephone conversations they had with their family members during the journey.

In the face of unblemished eveidence fo the family members my decision remains intact even after hearing the defence that the sole reason Sosilawati and company had gone to Banting was to the meet the 1st accused. The names thrown by the defence of Abdul Rahman Palil and the others who were known to Sosilawati were mere red herrings. Further these names did crop up during police investigation and the fact that they were not even called as witnesses shows that they had no role to play in this case. Similarly they were not calle by the defence.

The fact the Sosilawati and comapny had intended to see the 1st accused and had in fact seen the 1st accused is properly tied to the telecommunication evidence. The telelcommunication had charted the journey of Sosilawati and company right to the farm belonging to the 1st accused.

The defence had made attempts to discredit the evidence of this telecommunication records. To me these attempts were feeble at best of their defence made no attmept to discredit this evidence by calling experts of their own. The telecommunication remained admissible and cogent prove of the journey undertaken by Sosilawati and company right to the doorstep of the farm belonging to the 1st accused.

The evidence that Sosilawatu had in fact met the 1st accused can be inferred from the evidence of the maid SP33. I had held the maid to be a credible witness who spoke the truth for the reaasons I have elaborated at the end of the prosecution’s case. The defence made further attempts to discredit the evidence of SP33 by calling another occupant of the house where the maid was staying.

This witness SD26 according to her own testimony was sent to the farm by her family to be under the surveillance of the 4th accused to prevent her from associating herself with her boyfriend who had by now had become her husband. The manner in which she described she was kept in the farm was akin to house arrest. She was prevented by the 4tha ccused from stepping of the house or meeting any of the farm lands. She kept to herself in the house behind closed doors and windows. From the manner she was kept she neither saw nor heard anything outside the 4 corners of the house.

Although this witness denied that she was kept againsts her wihses the circumstances under which she was kept her complete fear for the 4th accused. This fear had continued up to her testimony in court where she refused to divulge any information which would incriminate the 4th accused. I did not accpet the evidence of this witness as the complete truth and from her demeanour it was obvious she was hiding something. Comparing her evidence with the evidence of SP33 I chose to believe the evidence of SP33 especially on the events occurring on 30/8/2010.

This court at this stage also considered the evidence of the 4th accuse on the presence of Sosilawati and company on the farm together with the 1st accused although the full evaluation of the 4th accused I will make in a short while. The 4th accused is clearly an accomplice however the law under the Evidence Act had considered it fit to accept the uncorroborated evidence of am accomplice. In this case I was aware that there might have been a fallout between the 4th accused and the 1st accused. I had to caution myselg accordingly against accepting the evidence of the 4th accused against the 1st accused. However even after cautioning myself I saw it fit to believe the portion of the 4th accused evidence that Sosilawati and company did come to the farm on 30/8/2010 and did meet the 1st accused.

All the accused also could offer no explanation of the items belonging to Sosilawati and company being found as a result of the information of the 4 arrested persons. 2 of the informants 2nd and 4th accused worked for the 1st accused and since Sosilawati came to see the 1st accused at the farm what happened thereafter was certainly could be inferred as being instuctions from the 1st accused.

The defence also offered no new explanation why the information should not be used against the accused apart from repeating earlier allegation of force being used on them. I see no reason to depart from my earlier findings that the information given by the 2nd and 4th accused was not properly admitted. I will further stress here that the police could not have recovered at the sites on their won without being led to their discovery by the informants.

The knowledge of the 2nd and 4th accused as to the items recovered further strengthens the fact that Sosilawati and company were at the farm on 30/8/10. The information given by the 2nd and 4th acused does not merely show knowledge but also shows that the items were in their possession prior to them being disposed. The items of Sosilawati and company being in the possession of the 2nd and 4th accused raise the only logical inference that they were obtained from Sosilawati and company and were obtained by force.

No explanation was given by the accused as to the finding of the blood and human bones on the farm. Again a feeble attempt was made to challenge the DNA evidence. There is no reason for me to discard the evidence of the experrts which I had accpeted earlier especially since the defence did not bring in any other expert evidence to the contrary. I am satisfied that the non-calling of the assistants to the experts did not in way compromise the results as the assistants were under constatnt supervision of the expert. Again the finding of the blood and charred human bones on the farm raises the onlu possible inference as to what could have happened to Sosilawati and company when they were on the farm that is they were burnt to death.


Moving on to the evidence of the 4th accused which deserves a seperate evaluation as his version of the events on the farm on 30/8/10 is a different version from either the defence or the prosecution. The thing that struck me most of the testimony of the 4th accused was the manner the evidence was carefully crafted to portray the innocence of the 4th accused and distance him from all the criminal activities which he confirmed happened on the farm on the 30 and 31/8/10.

I would be agree with the suggestion of one of the counsels that the 4th accused has manipulated the evidence to suit his own case. The 4th accused was present during major part of these proceedings and had listened to the evidence of the various witnesses. It was not difficult for him tailor his own evidence to suit him and the evidence of other witnesses.

Further he being an accomplice it was to his advantage to incriminate the other accused to save his own skin. I therefore evaluated the evidence of the 4th accused taking these factors into consideration. In evaluating the evidence of the 4th accused I felt that it was not correct to discard the entire testimony merely because he was not telling the whole truth. Certain portions could be accepted as I had stated earlier that his evidence that Sosilawati and company were on the farm on the 30/8/2010 could be believed and accepted as it was supported by other evidence.

However I could not believe the evidence that a total of 9 people had come to the farm on 30/8/10. There was totally no support for this contention. His further testimony that of the 9 people 7 were bundled to a neighbouring farm to be kept overnight before 3 of them were killed the next day is illogical.

To me it is unbelievable that the 4 accused could have overpowered 7 of the persons who came to the farm and keep them undetected overnight. It would be impossible to silence 7 people overnight. Further the issue of neighbouring faim did not arise during police investigation as testified by the Investigating officer.

To me this evidence of abduction to the neighbouring farm was an invention of the 4th accused and a way out of incriminating himself. This becomes clear looking from the mentality of the 4th accused as had he testified the murder took place on 30/8/10 he would be incriminated as he was on the farm that night. Whereas if he testified that the killings happened the next day he could offer an alibi which he did by saying that he had left the farm 3 times the next day to go to town trying to imply that he had no hand in the killing which took place on 31/8/2010.

I therefore brushed of this testimony of the 4th accused of the neighbouring farm and in my finding what ever happened to Sosilawati and company happened on 30/8/2010 with the involvement of the 4th accused together with the other 3 accused.

The 4th accused was also not convincing when he testifies that he had seen Sosilawati a week later when he was with the 1st. I noticed that when he was being questioned by the DPP on the identity of the woman he saw, the 4th accused appeared fidgety and evasive. This is again pure invention by the 4th accused as if he had really seen Sosilawati alive that would be the 1st thing he would have revealed to the police instead of bringing them to places to recover items belonging to Sosilawati and company. As I had observed earlier that the 4th accused was manipulative and by suddenly saying that Sosilawati was alive he hoped to divert this proceeding to another direction.

There was however one portion of the evidence by the 4th accused which had not been revealed earlier at any time during this proceedings and which the 4th accused testified at length and detail. This was with regards the action of 1st accused assuring all the 3 other accused the manner in which to face a likely inquiry from the police in the event they were questioned about the disappearance of Sosilawati which at that stage had made national news. In other words the 1st accused was preparing the 3 accused on the eventuality of being arrested and questioned about the disappearance of Sosilawati and company.

I believed this portion of the 4th accused testimony which was not only relevant but supported the fact that the happenings on the farm were far from pristine as tried to be portrayed by all the accused. This evidence led further credence to the fact of the misfortune that had befallen on Sosilawati and company on 30/8/10 at the farm. The fact there was a meeting to discuss the disappearance of Sosilawati and company indicated that all the 4 accused were involved in an earlier plan which they had carried out on 30/8/2010 by killing and disposing of the remains of Sosilawati and company.


Next I move to the question of motive and I had mentioned at the prosecution’s case that a probable motive and a reason to kill Sosilawati was the 1st accused inability to honour the cheque issued to Sosilawati. However after considering the testimony of the 1st accused there could be other more cogent reason which were unwittingly spilled out by the 1st accused himself in his testimony.

The 1st accused testified about 2 land deals both of which he was involved and acted for 2 opposing sides on the same matter as well as acquiring an interest in the transactions. These actions of the 1st accused were not only unethical but had also compromised his impartiality. The 1st accused had appeared for both Sosilawati and Rahman Palil in the same deal and by doing so he was caught between the devil anfd the deep blue sea.

On one hand was Sosilawati a well known entrepreneur and on the other was Rahman Palil in the word of the 1st accused that he was reluctant to organize a meeting involving both of the, when requested for such a meeting. When pushed to the corner as what happened to the 1st accused in this case he took the easy route of eliminating one of this person and unfortunately it happened to Sosilawati. The rest of the persons accompanying Sosilawati were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.


The matter which peeved the defence counsel at this trial was the court’s decision in accepting as evidence the record of proceedings of the magistrate’s Court whereby 2 prosecution witness SP29 and SP59 had pleaded guilty and in doing so had admitted to the facts forming the very essence of the proceedings before me.

As I had stated earlier the admissibility of the magistrate’s court proceedings were by virtue of sections 11 and 35 of the Evidence Act. I have no reason to depart from my earlier ruling.

I had also ruled that proceedings showed that both these witnesses had pleaded guilty to the charges against them and admitted to the facts voluntarily contrary to what they claimed before me that they were forced to plead guilty and denied they had admitted to the facts voluntarily. I therefore ruled that in the light of this contradictions in their conduct at 2 different forums their evidence in court in this trial was not worthy of credit.

The defence led further evidence in trying to convince the court there was a concerted effort by the police, the prosecutors and the defence counsel to fraudulently and unethically obtain the guilty plea of both this witnesses.

I noted that the counsels who finally appeared for both this witnesses at their criminal trial in the magistrate’s court Telok Datok had been procured with the aid of a senior police officer. The circumstances leading to the appointment of these lawyers by the senior police officer was clarified by both the parties involved in their testimony in court before me.

Without going into the details I accepted and believed the evidence of the SD30 that he was at the KL Police HQ for another matter and the case involving the 2 witnesses was informed by chance by the senior police officer SD28 who happened to be a friend. It is my finding that there was no ulterior motive on the part of SD28 when recommending a lawyer for both this witnesses. Nevertheless to me SD28 went beyond his call of duty and should have refrained from interfering in a case where his subordinate offivers were involved in investigating.

However the main consideration I gave to this issue was what the 2 witnesses felt on the appointment of these lawyers. The choice of SP59 as conveyed to his father SD15 was that he wanted SD30 to represent him. It is trite law only the accused can exercise the right of appointing counsel of his own choice. SD15 therefore had no business in interfering with the choice of SP59.

Further it is preposterous for SD15 to lead the court to believe that he was promised that his son would be freed if he accepted the police appointed lawyer. Surely SD15 could not have believed SP59 would be freed by virtue of the very fact that he knew that the son would be charged in court.

Further during the proceedings the charges were read to SP29 and SP59 and understood by them surely they would have not expected to be released if they pleaded guilty to the charge and more so after having admitted to the facts of the charge. The magistrate had taken enough precautions to ascertain that both the accused had pleaded and admitted to the facts voluntarily. To say the Magistrate was also involved in the plot to trap this 2 accused was certainly untenable.

The only conclusion that can be derived from the fact that SP29 and SO59 had pleaded guilty and admitted to the facts was because they had committed the offence for which they were charged. Their late disappointment could have stemmed from the fact that they were sentenced to more severely than they had expected. In short the whole conspiracy theory to me is unsustainable.

Having made a finding SP29 and SP59 had committed that acts that they were charged with I next looked at the facts themselves to determine whether they had any probative value in the proceedings before me.

The facts of the charge against SP29 and SP59 are contained in P711 and P712 respectively. The facts against SP29 showed that he had committed the offence of disposing of evidence to wit the ashes of Sosilawati and company whereas the facts against SP59 showed that he has disposed evidence by helping to burn the bodies of Sosilawati and company.

It was not incumbent upon me to determining whether the facts supported the charge or the evidence in this case corroborated the facts admitted by the 2 witnesses in this proceedings which the counsels invited me to do in this case by arguing that the facts did not support the charge. This was not the correct forum to do this.

I was merely concerned in the determining whether the facts as admitted by the 2 witnesses had any probative value that could be applied to the facts of this case. In determining this I had in mind the fact that both SP29 and SP59 were arrested together with the 3 accused in the case before me and ahd been questioned by the police. They knew that they were under investigation of the missing Sosilawati and company.

Therefore when they pleaded guilty both this witnesses knew exactly of whom the prosecution was referring to in the facts. P712 is especiallt cogent as SP59 had admitted that he had seen Sosilawati and company being killed and had helped the 2nd and 3rd accused to burn the bodies. I had earlier ruled that the facts did not implicate the accused directly but after taking into account the answers given by the accused to questions posed by the DPP in their cross examination that in the farm only 2nd and 3rd accused were named Thilayagan and Matan respectively it can be determined now that SP59 was referring to the 2nd and 3rd accused.

I have considered the 2 objections by the defence against accepting the facts contained in P711 and P712 as SP29 and SP59 are accomplices and because both this witnesses had been deemed witnesses unworthy or credit and SP29 had been impeached during the case for the prosecution.

As I have stated earlier that the fact the SP29 and SP59 are accomplices is no reasons for rejecting their evidence outright as the law recognizes accomplices to be competent witnesses against other accomplices. In this case after having cautioned myself I regard the admissions of SP29 and SP59 of the facts contained as a true reflection of the happenings on the farm on 30/8/10.

Further I regarded SP29 and SP59 unworthy of credit only for their evidence in the trial before me. This finding does not affect evidence in other proceedings. There is nothing in law declaring that once impeached a witness is no more a competent witness for any other trial or his evidence in some other proceedings cannot be considered by any court of the country.

I therefore regarded the facts in this proceeding to be cogent evidence against the accused in this case although I will put again a very big caveat by saying that on their own facts in P711 and P712 are insufficient to sustain a conviction of the 4 accused before me. In fact I would go as far as to say that even without the facts in P711 and P712 tendered in these proceedings there is sufficient circumstantial evidence which I have outlined earlier to implicate all the 4 accused.


The defence called as an expert a person SD12 who had been exposed to open air cremation since the age of 6. I had no doubts that this person was an expert in cremation according to Hindu rites. But my recognition to his expertise stops short to just that an expert in Hindu cremation rites. I could not stretch his expertise to include to all kinds of open air burnings. This is clear from the answers given by this witness himself when he stated that he used rubber wood and kerosene because they were cheap and not because of their intrinsic burning value. In other words his profession was for commercial purpose. The manner which he described the cremation took place of course conforms to the correct Hindu rites.

I cannot accept that this is the only method to burn bodies or the only proper way to burn bodies. This witness was carrying on family tradition and carried on the rites as he learned from his fore fathers and not from any form of literature.

It would be insulting the intelligence to accept this evidence and use it as a basis to decide that no burning of the bodies would have been done on 30/8/10 at the farm. The finding of burnt logs, the charred remains of soil at the farm and the presence of human bones, burnt zincs containing traces of blood indicated there was in fact a burning of human bodies on the farm and blood indicated there was in fact a burning of human bodies on the farm and it might have not be done in the correct Hindu rites manner yet it was done.

One cannot expect the same results when there are different methods of burning involved. Human bones were present at the site of burning supporting the fact that cerements like fragment of bones can still remain as happens in a normal Hindu cremation as testified by this witness. The fact the bones were found under the earth does not indicate that they had seeped through the earth as contended by the defence. If the accused could throw away the ashes they could have also dug the bones in.

There might be difficulty in burning bodies one top of another but it does not mean it cannot be done. This witness predictably could not comprehend doing such a thing as this was not the usual method in Hindu rites.


All the evidence in this case recouped together puts to shade the saying that dead men tell no tales. In this case the dead men and 1 woman shouted at the top of their lungs through silent evidence, a tale of dishonesty and deception precipitated by sheer and naked greed orchestrated by a man whose profession preached trustworthiness and honour.
This rogue professionals are rare and few yet their victims are not only the poor and desolate but also the high and mighty. This case is evidence of such a gruesome plot executed by a rogue professional and his cohorts with extreme brutality.

The question now is, are the facts sufficient to prove a charge of murder as defined in Penal Code. This is a case unlike others where there are no dead bodies recovered. The only other case of a similar nature was the case of Singapore Case of Sunny Ang where the accused was convicted despite the body of the victim not being found.

In the case of Sunny Ang the victim went to sea and never returned whereas in this case the victims went to the farm and never returned. However, there is far more evidence in this case then that was present in the case of Sunny Ang. In this case at least traces of the victim’s blood were found as well as personal items of the victims. In other word this case the bodies were not completely missing unlike the case of Sunny Ang.

I therefore see no reason why the accused in this case cannot be convicted merely because no bodies were recovered. The evidence in this case satisfies the ingredients required to prove a charge of murder that is the 4 accused had caused the death of Sosilawati and company and they had only one intention to do so that is to cause the death intentionally with full knowledge of their actions.


I am satisfied in this case that the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubth all the 4 charges against all the 4 accused and th accused have failed raise any reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. I find all the 4 accused guilty as charged on all the 4 charges.


Read more at NST here.

No comments: