Federal Court upholds ex-pathologist colonel's death sentence for Kevin Morais' murder
PUTRAJAYA (July 1): The Federal Court today upheld the death sentence imposed on a former pathologist colonel for the murder of Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Anthony Kevin Morais in 2015.
A three-man bench led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat affirmed the murder conviction of Colonel Dr R. Kunaseegaran, 62, S. Nimalan, 31 and S. Ravi Chandran, 53.
However, both Nimalan and Ravi Chandran were spared the gallows after the court commuted the death sentences imposed on them by the High Court to life imprisonment.
Nimalan was sentenced to 35 years in prison with 12 strokes of the cane, while Ravi Chandran was sentenced to 40 years in jail. The court did not impose whipping on Ravi Chandran as he is above 50 years of age.
Justice Tengku Maimun said Kunaseegaran's death sentence remained as he had withdrawn his appeal against the sentence.
Meanwhile, the panel, also comprising Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Federal Court judge Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang, discharged and acquitted the other three individuals, namely R. Dinishwaran, 32, A.K. Thinesh Kumar, 31, and M. Vishwanath, 34, for the murder.
On July 10, 2020, the six men were sentenced to death after they were found guilty of killing Morais, 55, somewhere along Jalan Dutamas Raya Sentul and No. 1, Jalan USJ 1/6D, Subang Jaya, between 7 am and 8 pm on Sept 4, 2015.
The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals on March 14 last year.
Morais, who was reported missing on Sept 4, 2015, was last seen leaving his apartment at Menara Duta, Kuala Lumpur, in a Proton Perdana. His body was found in a cement-filled oil drum at Persiaran Subang Mewah, Subang Jaya, on Sept 16 the same year. decision federal court Final Appeals Kevin Morais murder Six men
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
Court of Appeal dismisses ex-student's bullying lawsuit appeal
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a former special education student seeking damages and declaratory relief over alleged bullying and insufficient educational support. The appellant, now 27, has ADHD and Asperger's Syndrome. A three-member bench, comprising Justices Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, Datuk Azmi Ariffin, and Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, ruled that the appellant failed to substantiate his claims against the school, principal, Malaysian government, and Education Ministry. The lawsuit, filed in 2017, alleged negligence leading to physical and verbal abuse. The appellate court upheld the High Court's February 2023 decision, citing insufficient evidence. Justice Mohd Nazlan noted the appellant did not testify, and his adoptive mother's testimony was deemed hearsay. 'The alleged assailant was neither named in the suit nor called as a witness,' he said. While condemning bullying, the court found no proof of victimisation. Justice Mohd Nazlan emphasised schools' duty of care but found no breaches in this case. The appellant had claimed repeated bullying, including being tied to his bed and spat on, with no action taken despite complaints. - Bernama
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Court of appeal dismissed former special needs student's appeal in bullying suit
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a former student of a special education secondary school who sought damages and declaratory relief over alleged bullying and the failure to provide proper special education. The appellant, now 27, had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Asperger's Syndrome. The Court of Appeal three-member bench, comprising Justices Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, dismissed the appeal after ruling that the appellant failed to prove his claim against the school, the school principal, the Malaysian government and the Education Ministry. The appellant, through his adoptive mother, had filed the lawsuit in 2017 at the High Court against the school, the school principal, the Malaysian Government and the Education Ministry. He claimed the respondents breached their duty of care, which caused him to be a victim of physical and verbal attacks whilst at the premises of the school. In the 44-page judgment, which was uploaded on the judiciary's website on Monday (Aug 4), the appellate court affirmed the Feb 2023 decision of the High Court in dismissing the suit filed by the young man. Justice Mohd Nazlan said there was insufficient evidence that the respondents failed to ensure a proper and appropriate education and teaching facilities for the young man. He said the appellant failed to prove the allegation of bullying incidents on the balance of probabilities, and also did not prove the actual occurrences of the verbal and physical assault as claimed by the appellant. Justice Mohd Nazlan observed that the appellant did not testify in his case, and the testimony provided by his adoptive mother was deemed hearsay and therefore inadmissible. "The appellants' (appellant and adoptive mother) case regarding the alleged incidents could not succeed, as the individual accused of harassing and assaulting the appellant was neither named as a party to the suit nor subpoenaed to testify as a witness,' he said. The court stressed that bullying has no place in any civilised society, but found the evidence presented in the case insufficient to prove that the appellant had been victimised. "In this case, we are not unsympathetic to the problems and plight encountered by the appellants. "There may have been disagreements or even altercations, especially involving the first appellant and H (the individual in question), but the court must decide based on facts and evidence,' said Justice Mohd Nazlan. He said school authorities, including teachers and staff, undoubtedly owe a duty of care to ensure the safety of their pupils and students within the compound and premises of the school and that they were responsible for the students' safety, welfare, and well-being. "Schools must, in their operations, adhere to the regulations, standards, and policies issued by the education authorities, particularly concerning the provision of special education for students with special needs,' he said. However, he added that no breaches of these duties had been established in this case. In the statement of claim, the appellant claimed he was bullied several times at the hostel, including being spat at while he was praying, tied to his bed, punched and kicked, and his belongings were stolen. He claimed that no action was taken by the school and its principal, despite numerous complaints lodged. In the statement of defence filed on July 24, 2017, the school stated that the placement of the student concerned was made based on the choice made by the boy and his adoptive mother during registration. — Bernama
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Appeals court tosses ex-student's alleged bullying suit, says claim had no legal basis
PUTRAJAYA, Aug 5 — The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a former student of a special education secondary school who sought damages and declaratory relief over alleged bullying and the failure to provide proper special education. The appellant, now 27, had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Asperger's Syndrome. The Court of Appeal three-member bench, comprising Justices Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, dismissed the appeal after ruling that the appellant failed to prove his claim against the school, the school principal, the Malaysian government and the Education Ministry. The appellant, through his adoptive mother, had filed the lawsuit in 2017 at the High Court against the school, the school principal, the Malaysian Government and the Education Ministry. He claimed the respondents breached their duty of care, which caused him to be a victim of physical and verbal attacks whilst at the premises of the school. In the 44-page judgment, which was uploaded on the judiciary's website yesterday, the appellate court affirmed the February 2023 decision of the High Court in dismissing the suit filed by the young man. Justice Mohd Nazlan, who wrote the court's judgment, said there was insufficient evidence that the respondents failed to ensure a proper and appropriate education and teaching facilities for the young man. He said the appellant failed to prove the allegation of bullying incidents on the balance of probabilities, and also did not prove the actual occurrences of the verbal and physical assault as claimed by the appellant. Justice Mohd Nazlan observed that the appellant did not testify in his case, and the testimony provided by his adoptive mother was deemed hearsay and therefore inadmissible. 'The appellants' (appellant and adoptive mother) case regarding the alleged incidents could not succeed, as the individual accused of harassing and assaulting the appellant was neither named as a party to the suit nor subpoenaed to testify as a witness,' he said. The court stressed that bullying has no place in any civilised society, but found the evidence presented in the case insufficient to prove that the appellant had been victimised. 'In this case, we are not unsympathetic to the problems and plight encountered by the appellants. There may have been disagreements or even altercations, especially involving the first appellant and H (the individual in question), but the court must decide based on facts and evidence,' said Justice Mohd Nazlan. He said school authorities, including teachers and staff, undoubtedly owe a duty of care to ensure the safety of their pupils and students within the compound and premises of the school and that they were responsible for the students' safety, welfare, and well-being. 'Schools must, in their operations, adhere to the regulations, standards, and policies issued by the education authorities, particularly concerning the provision of special education for students with special needs,' he said. However, he added that no breaches of these duties had been established in this case. In the statement of claim, the appellant, who was diagnosed with ADHD when he was four years old, claimed he was bullied several times by other students when he was at the hostel, including being spat at while he was praying, tied to his bed, punched and kicked, and his belongings were stolen. He claimed that no action was taken by the school and its principal, despite numerous complaints lodged. In the statement of defence filed on July 24, 2017, the school stated that the placement of the student concerned was made based on the choice made by the boy and his adoptive mother during registration. — Bernama
