The sole person who maintained his plea of innocence in the trial over a
charge of illegal assembly during the Hindraf rally in November 2007
was today found guilty by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
M Murugan, 47, was given a 14 days' jail and fined RM2,000 by judge Mohamad Sekeri Mamat.
Murugan is the only one out of more than 100 people, who faced similar charges in courts in Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam, to maintain his plea of not guilty.
Some of those who pleaded guilty midway through their trials said they did so due to the inconvenience of having to attend court.
They were ordered to pay fines ranging from RM750 to RM1,500.
Judge Sekeri allowed a stay of execution of the jail sentence pending appeal and maintained the bond amount.
However, a stay was not granted for the fine of RM2,000.
Accused: It was worth it
Earlier, DPP Diar Isda pushed for a deterrent sentence, saying a message must be sent to the public that such acts could not be tolerated.
"Over the past few years, there have been several illegal assemblies. An appropriate sentence will be a deterrent," Diar said.
Outside the court, Murugan told Malaysiakini that he was not deterred by the judgment, maintaining that his participation in the Hindraf rally and subsequent three-year trial ordeal was justified.
"In my view, what I did was right. We were figthing for the rights of our community.
M Murugan, 47, was given a 14 days' jail and fined RM2,000 by judge Mohamad Sekeri Mamat.Murugan is the only one out of more than 100 people, who faced similar charges in courts in Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam, to maintain his plea of not guilty.
Some of those who pleaded guilty midway through their trials said they did so due to the inconvenience of having to attend court.
They were ordered to pay fines ranging from RM750 to RM1,500.
Judge Sekeri allowed a stay of execution of the jail sentence pending appeal and maintained the bond amount.
However, a stay was not granted for the fine of RM2,000.
Accused: It was worth it
Earlier, DPP Diar Isda pushed for a deterrent sentence, saying a message must be sent to the public that such acts could not be tolerated.
"Over the past few years, there have been several illegal assemblies. An appropriate sentence will be a deterrent," Diar said.
Outside the court, Murugan told Malaysiakini that he was not deterred by the judgment, maintaining that his participation in the Hindraf rally and subsequent three-year trial ordeal was justified.
"In my view, what I did was right. We were figthing for the rights of our community.
"Even
though having to attend the hearings caused me financial problems and
inconvenience, this is worth it," said Murugan, who works as a security
guard and is the sole breadwinner for his family.
His counsel, M Visvanathan, is upbeat about his client's chances on appeal because he believes the trial judged had erred in his judgment.
'Why no towel and toothbrush?'
One contentious point is the judge's ruling that Murugan's testimony that he was present during the rally because he was working at a nearby car park the night before was not proven.
"The
judge faulted him for not bringing a towel and toothbrush. He was an
attendant at the car park for just one night as it was a last minute
arrangement," Visvanathan (right) said.
He said that judge had also faulted his client for failing to produce the car park owner to testify.
In addition to this, Visvanathan said, the prosecution had failed to put the investigating officer on the witness stand, which he said was abnormal.
He said the burden was on the prosecution to prove its case but in this case, there appeared to be a higher burden on the accused to prove his innocence.
"Clearly, the absence of the investigating officer shows the burden is on the accused, rather than on the prosecution. This definitely needs to be tested in the High Court," he said.
His counsel, M Visvanathan, is upbeat about his client's chances on appeal because he believes the trial judged had erred in his judgment.
'Why no towel and toothbrush?'
One contentious point is the judge's ruling that Murugan's testimony that he was present during the rally because he was working at a nearby car park the night before was not proven.
"The
judge faulted him for not bringing a towel and toothbrush. He was an
attendant at the car park for just one night as it was a last minute
arrangement," Visvanathan (right) said.He said that judge had also faulted his client for failing to produce the car park owner to testify.
In addition to this, Visvanathan said, the prosecution had failed to put the investigating officer on the witness stand, which he said was abnormal.
He said the burden was on the prosecution to prove its case but in this case, there appeared to be a higher burden on the accused to prove his innocence.
"Clearly, the absence of the investigating officer shows the burden is on the accused, rather than on the prosecution. This definitely needs to be tested in the High Court," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment