Nhaveen murder trial: Prosecution cites contradictions in four accused’s defence

The prosecution argues that contradictions in the defence's testimony suggest a lack of credibility in the Nhaveen murder case.

The defence claims there is reasonable doubt about how and where the fatal injuries occurred, questioning witness testimonies and medical evidence.

The High Court has set November 16 for further case management, allowing both sides to file additional submissions before a decision is made.

GEORGE TOWN, Oct 14 — The High Court here was told today that there are four main grounds for the prosecution’s bid to convict the four accused in the murder of teenager T. Nhaveen nine years ago, with the contention that the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt against its case.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mohd Amril Johari said among these grounds was the contradiction between the defence’s version during the prosecution’s case and the accused’s testimony at the defence stage last week.

He said the defence of all four accused had shifted when they gave evidence themselves, particularly regarding a claim by one of them, who was a teenager at the time of the incident, that he was beaten unconscious with a helmet by Nhaveen’s friend, T. Previin, while trying to break up a fight.

Mohd Amril described the claim as an afterthought, as it had not been raised earlier, and said the contradictions in the accused’s testimony raised questions over the defence’s credibility.

“The defence’s case at the prosecution stage is totally different from the defence now. So, they are shifting the goalposts.

“The prosecution’s theory also does not dispute their (the accused’s) presence at both locations — Jalan Kaki Bukit and Padang Openg, Gelugor,” he said while submitting during the defence proceedings of the four individuals charged with Nhaveen’s murder.

He questioned the absence of a medical report to support the accused’s claim of being injured to the point of losing consciousness.

He also noted that the issue of a phone call made by one of the accused, J. Ragesuthen, 27, to Nhaveen’s mother, T. Shanti, on the night of the incident was supported by witness testimony.

Mohd Amril asked the court to examine the difference between the brief grounds of judgment of the Court of Appeal, which ordered the four accused to enter their defence, and the full grounds of judgment in the appeal involving another respondent, S. Gopinaath, 35, who was acquitted and discharged.

However, lawyer Maanveer Singh Dhillon, representing all four accused, argued that reasonable doubt remains over how and where the injuries that led to Nhaveen’s death occurred.

He said Nhaveen was still alive after the incident at Jalan Kaki Bukit and had ridden a motorcycle with an individual known as “Belang,” but what happened afterwards could not be ascertained based on the evidence presented in court.

He said the testimony of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence must be assessed as a whole, including the question of whether the injuries Nhaveen sustained occurred at the scene of the fight or after he was taken away.

Maanveer Singh also questioned the discrepancy in the number of individuals said to have been involved in the incident based on several versions of testimony, and stressed that the defence did not deny a scuffle had taken place at Jalan Kaki Bukit, but disputed whether that incident caused Nhaveen’s death.

Judge Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid then set November 16 for case management to allow the prosecution and defence to file additional submissions before a decision date is fixed.

The four accused, Ragesuthan, S. Gokulan, 27, and two others who were teenagers at the time of the incident, gave their witness statements on October 8 and 9 last year.

They were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code for Nhaveen’s murder, which carries the death penalty or imprisonment of 30 to 40 years and not less than 12 strokes of the cane, upon conviction.

They were also charged under Section 326 of the same law for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Previin with dangerous weapons, which provides for up to 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine or caning.

Nhaveen and Previin were 18 and 19 years old, respectively, at the time of the incident.

In addition to Mohd Amril, DPPs Yazid Mustaqim Roslan and Noor Azura Zulkiflee also appeared for the prosecution, while all four accused are represented by lawyers Maanveer Singh, R. Thevan and Lim Sheng Zhe. Lawyer T. Gunaseelan is holding a watching brief for Nhaveen’s family.

Previously, the Court of Appeal ordered Ragesuthan, Gokulan and the two teenagers to enter their defence on the charge of murdering Nhaveen after allowing the prosecution’s appeal against the High Court decision that acquitted them on October 3, 2023.

They were also ordered to enter their defence on the charge of injuring Previin near the Karpal Singh Learning Centre at Jalan Kaki Bukit, Gelugor, between 11pm and midnight on June 9, 2017.

Nhaveen died on June 15, 2017, after six days of treatment at Penang Hospital from severe injuries sustained in the incident. — Bernama

Five govt buildings get solar installations ahead of schedule, says works minister

Why should a good man go when the corrupt stay? Anwar says Malaysia needs ministers like Anthony Loke

Sarawak Education Dept: Schools open tomorrow, outdoor activities halted if API tops 100

检方认为，辩方证词中的矛盾之处表明，纳文谋杀案缺乏可信度。

辩方声称，对于致命伤的发生方式和地点存在合理怀疑，并对证人证词和医疗证据提出质疑。

高等法院已将11月16日定为案件进一步管理日期，允许双方在作出决定前提交补充材料。

乔治市，10 月 14 日讯——今天，高等法院获悉，控方提出四项主要理由，力图判定九年前青少年 T. Nhaveen 被谋杀案的四名被告有罪，理由是辩方未能提出合理的怀疑来反驳控方的指控。

副检察官莫哈末·阿姆里尔·佐哈里表示，这些理由之一是控方在案件审理阶段的说法与被告上周在辩护阶段的证词存在矛盾。

他说，所有四名被告的辩护策略在他们自己作证时都发生了转变，特别是其中一名被告（事发时还是个十几岁的少年）声称，他在试图劝架时被纳文的朋友T·普雷文用头盔打晕。

莫哈末·阿姆里尔称这一说法是事后才提出的，因为之前并没有提出过，他还表示，被告证词中的矛盾之处引发了人们对辩方可信度的质疑。

“控方在诉讼阶段提出的论点与现在的辩护论点完全不同。所以，他们这是在改变游戏规则。”

“控方的理论也没有否认被告人曾出现在 Jalan Kaki Bukit 和 Padang Openg, Gelugor 这两个地点，”他在为被控谋杀 Nhaveen 的四名被告人进行辩护时说道。

他质疑没有医疗报告来支持被告声称自己受伤到失去意识的说法。

他还指出，被告之一 J. Ragesuthen（27 岁）在事发当晚给 Nhaveen 的母亲 T. Shanti 打过电话一事，得到了证人证词的支持。

莫哈末·阿姆里尔请求法庭审查上诉法院的简要判决理由（命令四名被告进行辩护）与另一名被告 S. Gopinaath（35 岁）的上诉判决的完整理由之间的区别，后者被判无罪释放。

然而，代表四名被告的律师曼维尔·辛格·迪隆辩称，对于导致纳文死亡的伤势是如何以及在哪里发生的，仍然存在合理的怀疑。

他说，在 Jalan Kaki Bukit 事件发生后，Nhaveen 仍然活着，并且与一个名叫“Belang”的人一起骑摩托车，但根据法庭上提供的证据，无法确定之后发生了什么。

他说，控方证人的证词和医疗证据必须作为一个整体进行评估，包括纳维恩所受的伤是在打斗现场造成的，还是在他被带走之后造成的。

曼维尔·辛格还质疑了根据几份证词得出的涉案人数存在差异，并强调辩方并未否认在加基武吉路发生过冲突，但对该事件是否导致纳文死亡提出异议。

法官拿督莫哈末·拉兹·阿卜杜勒·哈米德随后将案件管理日期定为11月16日，以便控辩双方在确定判决日期前提交补充材料。

去年10月8日和9日，四名被告——Ragesuthan、27岁的S. Gokulan以及事发时还是青少年的另外两人——提供了证词。

他们因谋杀纳维恩而被控违反《刑法》第 302 条，该条规定，一经定罪，可判处死刑或 30 至 40 年监禁，并处以不少于 12 下鞭刑。

他们还被控违反同一法律第 326 条，即使用危险武器故意对普雷文造成严重伤害，该条款规定最高可判处 20 年监禁和罚款或鞭刑。

事发时，Nhaveen 和 Previin 分别为 18 岁和 19 岁。

除了莫哈末·阿姆里尔之外，控方律师亚兹德·穆斯塔基姆·罗斯兰和努尔·阿祖拉·祖尔基夫利也出庭，而四名被告的代理律师分别是曼维尔·辛格、R·特万和林胜哲。律师T·古纳塞兰代表纳文的家人旁听此案。

此前，上诉法院允许检方对高等法院于 2023 年 10 月 3 日作出的无罪判决提出上诉，并命令 Ragesuthan、Gokulan 和两名青少年就谋杀 Nhaveen 的指控进行辩护。

他们还被勒令就 2017 年 6 月 9 日晚上 11 点至午夜期间在格鲁格尔卡基武吉路卡巴星学习中心附近伤害普雷文的指控进行辩护。

2017年6月15日，纳文在槟城医院接受六天治疗后，因在事故中身受重伤去世。——马新社

工程部长表示，五座政府大楼提前安装了太阳能装置。

为何好人要走，而腐败分子却留任？安华表示，马来西亚需要像陆兆福这样的部长。

砂拉越教育局：若API超过100，学校明日开学，户外活动暂停