PUTRAJAYA: Two Indian brothers escaped the gallows after the Court of Appeal acquitted and discharged them from charges of murder of a couple, whose bodies were discovered in suitcases abandoned in a drain, at two different locations in Shah Alam, five years ago.
A three-judge panel, led by Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, unanimously acquitted and discharged Sagar Sharma, 29, and Shubham Sharma, 24, after finding merit in both appellants’ appeals.
“The court found that the High Court judge erred in accepting the testimony of prosecution witnesses, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950, and there was insufficient evidence linking the two appellants to the crime.
“The court also found that the conviction and death sentence, handed down by the High Court judge, was unsafe to uphold. Therefore, the appellants’ appeal was allowed, and both were acquitted and discharged of the murder charge,” said Ahmad Zaidi, who sat on the panel with Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and High Court Judge Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril.
The two brothers were seen crying after the panel of judges delivered the decision.
The two men, who previously worked as security guards, appealed against the decision of the Shah Alam High Court, on Nov 2, 2022, which sentenced them to death by hanging, after they were found guilty of murdering Lim Ah Kee @ Lim Kok Hoe, 79, and Tan Siew Mee, 52, at a house in Subang Jaya, between 8 pm on Aug 23 and 3.20 am on Aug 24, 2019.
The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Penal Code, which provides for the mandatory death penalty if convicted.
Earlier, lawyer, Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi, who represented both appellants, argued that the High Court judge erred in accepting the testimony of two prosecution witnesses under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950.
According to the lawyer, the two witnesses, who are police officers, did not submit any notes to substantiate or confirm the information they received from the appellants.
“This is a material misdirection of the law, as Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires a stringent burden of proof. Otherwise, it can be misused, leading to the potential for inaccurate or misleading information being presented in court.
“The two witnesses also failed to clarify the exact words used by the appellants that led to the discovery of the suitcases containing the victims’ bodies. There is no evidence of the verbatim statements made by the appellants that would allow the court to determine whether the evidence falls under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,” he said.
Afifuddin further argued that the appellants did not understand Malay, and there was no evidence regarding the language or sentences used when they provided information to the police, which resulted in the discovery of the suitcases containing the victims’ bodies.
Deputy public prosecutor Eyu Ghim Siang countered that the information given by the appellants, which led to the discovery of the victims’ bodies, was adequate to establish their connection to the murder.
“There is a police report indicating that an interrogation was conducted with the appellants, during which it was determined that they understood Malay and were willing to disclose the locations of case items, such as knives. The defence did not contest the voluntariness of the information provided by the appellants during the trial,” he said.
Eyu added that the appellants lived with the deceased in the same house, and that, according to a witness who was a neighbour, the appellants were the adopted sons of the married couple.
