SHAH ALAM: The Sessions Court here today set Feb 17 to decide whether or not to call Corporal Jenain Subi to enter his defence on a charge of causing the death of 15-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah in April last year.
Judge Latifah Mohd Tahar fixed the date after hearing submissions by both parties at the end of the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution had called 39 witnesses to testify in the trial which began on Oct 12 last year.
Jenain, 48 was charged with causing Aminulrasyid’s death between 1.10am and 2am on April 26, 2010 at Jalan Tarian 11/2, Section 11 here.
He is charged under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code which carries a maximum jail sentence of 30 years, and could be fined, if convicted.
Deputy public prosecutors Idham Abd Ghani, Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar and Adilla Ahmad prosecuted, while Jenain was represented by lawyers M Athimulan and Salim Bashir.
Idham, in his submission, stated that based on the testimony by three patrol policemen at the scene, Jenain had fired at the teenager at Jalan Tarian 11/2.
On a submission by the defence that Constable Mohd Izham Mahayadin could have fired the shots at Aminulrasyid since a spent bullet belonging to him was found, Idham said there was no doubt that the other spent bullets found at the scene came from Jenain’s rifle.
On a claim of a machete found in the Iswara car driven by Aminulrasyid, he said it would not change the fact that the victim was a 15-year-old student with no criminal record.
“The Iswara car, BET 5023, also had no criminal record or is wanted by the authorities. As stated by Azamuddin Omar, who was in the car, Aminulrsyid only wanted to go home to meet his mother. He was also afraid… firstly being chased by a group of motorcyclists and then pursued by the police patrol cars,” he added.
Idham also submitted that Jenain was good at handling firearms and he also knew the effect and implication of his action in firing 21 shots at the car driven by Aminulrasyid.
“A shot which hit the back of the victim’s head from the rear windscreen showed the intention that the shot was meant to cause bodily harm,” he added.
As such, Idham said based on the facts, evidence and submission by the prosecution, a case under Section 304 of the Penal Code had been established against Jenain.
Meanwhile, Salim submitted that Mohd Izham was a witness with interests in the case because he fired the first shot at the car.
“There was a spent bullet found near the scene and this was not challenged (by the prosecution). This showed that Mohd Izham could have lied in the court to protect himself and he is the interested party because based on the facts, he also fired the shot on the day of the incident.
“The prosecution said that Mohd Izham could not be held responsible (for shooting Aminulrasyid) only because of one bullet and we also cannot say that the accused had caused the victim’s death only because of one bullet,” he added.
-Bernama
Judge Latifah Mohd Tahar fixed the date after hearing submissions by both parties at the end of the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution had called 39 witnesses to testify in the trial which began on Oct 12 last year.
Jenain, 48 was charged with causing Aminulrasyid’s death between 1.10am and 2am on April 26, 2010 at Jalan Tarian 11/2, Section 11 here.
He is charged under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code which carries a maximum jail sentence of 30 years, and could be fined, if convicted.
Deputy public prosecutors Idham Abd Ghani, Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar and Adilla Ahmad prosecuted, while Jenain was represented by lawyers M Athimulan and Salim Bashir.
Idham, in his submission, stated that based on the testimony by three patrol policemen at the scene, Jenain had fired at the teenager at Jalan Tarian 11/2.
On a submission by the defence that Constable Mohd Izham Mahayadin could have fired the shots at Aminulrasyid since a spent bullet belonging to him was found, Idham said there was no doubt that the other spent bullets found at the scene came from Jenain’s rifle.
On a claim of a machete found in the Iswara car driven by Aminulrasyid, he said it would not change the fact that the victim was a 15-year-old student with no criminal record.
“The Iswara car, BET 5023, also had no criminal record or is wanted by the authorities. As stated by Azamuddin Omar, who was in the car, Aminulrsyid only wanted to go home to meet his mother. He was also afraid… firstly being chased by a group of motorcyclists and then pursued by the police patrol cars,” he added.
Idham also submitted that Jenain was good at handling firearms and he also knew the effect and implication of his action in firing 21 shots at the car driven by Aminulrasyid.
“A shot which hit the back of the victim’s head from the rear windscreen showed the intention that the shot was meant to cause bodily harm,” he added.
As such, Idham said based on the facts, evidence and submission by the prosecution, a case under Section 304 of the Penal Code had been established against Jenain.
Meanwhile, Salim submitted that Mohd Izham was a witness with interests in the case because he fired the first shot at the car.
“There was a spent bullet found near the scene and this was not challenged (by the prosecution). This showed that Mohd Izham could have lied in the court to protect himself and he is the interested party because based on the facts, he also fired the shot on the day of the incident.
“The prosecution said that Mohd Izham could not be held responsible (for shooting Aminulrasyid) only because of one bullet and we also cannot say that the accused had caused the victim’s death only because of one bullet,” he added.
-Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment