April 9 - Decision on Altantuya murder case
Published: Feb 17, 2009 9:39 AM | Updated: Feb 17, 2009 12:32 PM
The fate of two special action force police personnel accused of murdering Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu will be known on April 9.
The fate of two special action force police personnel accused of murdering Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu will be known on April 9.
According to Bernama, Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin set the date after hearing submissions from all the parties at the end of the defence's case yesterday and today.
C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 33, and Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, 37, were called to enter their defence last Oct 31. Azilah testified in his defence from the witness stand while Sirul Azhar read out his written testimony from the dock.
No other defence witnesses were called.
Azilah and Sirul Azhar are charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735 Mukim Bukit Raja near here between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.
Before this, they were tried together with Malaysian Strategic Research Centre executive director Abdul Razak Baginda, 48, who was charged with abetment.
However, on Oct 31, 2008, the political analyst (left) was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called after the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against him.
In his submission, Deputy Public Prosecutor Manoj Kurup had submitted that Azilah could not prove his alibi that he was not at the murder scene on the night in question.
He said Azilah also did not call a single witness to corroborate his alibi.
"All we have is the ipse dixit of the first accused that he was at Wangsa Maju (in Kuala Lumpur). The notice of alibi mandated under Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code mentions persons acquainted with the fact of alibi. Yet, for reasons best known to the first accused, he chose not to call as witnesses the persons named in P430 (Azilah's girlfriend, Nur Azila Baharuddin).
"Now, my lord, it is trite that an adverse inference should not be drawn against an accused person for failure to call a particular witness or adduce evidence which he could have. Failure to call any witness or adduce evidence should not be made the subject of an adverse comment, and it must be emphasised that the prosecution is not doing that.
"What we are submitting is simply this, by failing to call his alibi witness, the first accused lost the chance of casting a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case," he said.
Littered with inconsistencies
Manoj also submitted that Azilah’s testimony is littered with inconsistencies, discrepancies and improbabilities, so much so, that only one inference is possible from it, the first accused is spinning a yarn.
"The first accused said he did not ask Abdul Razak why the Chinese woman and the Chinese man were extorting him ('ugut'). He also said DSP Musa Safri did not give him details about the problems faced by Abdul Razak.
"So why did the first accused not ask Abdul Razak what the 'ugut' was about? Wouldn't any reasonable police officer want to know? It is respectfully submitted that the evidence of the first accused here is inherently incredible," he said.
Manoj said Azilah's evidence was not in the least surprising for the following two reasons.
Firstly, he said: "The first accused admitted under cross-examination that he had full discretion as to what action to take with respect to the problem faced by Abdul Razak and that Abdul Razak left everything to him to solve his problem.
"Secondly, the first accused admitted, also under cross-examination, that as far as he was concerned, 'masalah Abdul Razak telah selesai pada malam itu juga' (Abdul Razak's problem had been settled that night itself). Then he quickly denied that he knew what had happened to the deceased. How could he know Abdul Razak's problem was already solved that very night without knowing what had happened to the deceased? The first accused got trapped in his own sticky web of lies here."
Prize for best fiction
Manoj also submitted that both accused now competed against each other for the prize for best fiction told in Court and that both versions ought to be rejected as not being able to cast a reasonable doubt as to their complicity and guilt in the murder of Altantuya.
"One critical matter for scrutiny arises here. If indeed it was the case that it was the second accused who was supposed to take the deceased back to the hotel, why continue the journey to Bukit Aman and do the transfer of the deceased there? Why not do it at the place where they had stopped?.
"The first accused said the second accused wanted to proceed on to Bukit Aman first but no explanation was given for this. The first accused was the superior officer of the second accused, but he appeared to have blindly followed the second accused to Bukit Aman, with no reasons being forwarded for this quaint behaviour. The defence of the two accused begs questions but answers none," Manoj said.
At the end of his submission, Manoj said the several strands of circumstantial evidence that the prosecution had painstakingly proved had remained un-rebutted, unexplained and unanswered by both accused in this case.
"The combined strength of those strands of evidence when twisted together has formed two ropes, strong enough to hang each accused person.
It is respectfully submitted that no reasonable doubt is cast on the prosecution's case by either accused. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused, warranting a conviction on the charge of murder committed in pursuance to a common intention of them both," he said.
According to Bernama, Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin set the date after hearing submissions from all the parties at the end of the defence's case yesterday and today.C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 33, and Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, 37, were called to enter their defence last Oct 31. Azilah testified in his defence from the witness stand while Sirul Azhar read out his written testimony from the dock.
No other defence witnesses were called.
Azilah and Sirul Azhar are charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735 Mukim Bukit Raja near here between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.
Before this, they were tried together with Malaysian Strategic Research Centre executive director Abdul Razak Baginda, 48, who was charged with abetment.
However, on Oct 31, 2008, the political analyst (left) was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called after the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against him.In his submission, Deputy Public Prosecutor Manoj Kurup had submitted that Azilah could not prove his alibi that he was not at the murder scene on the night in question.
He said Azilah also did not call a single witness to corroborate his alibi.
"All we have is the ipse dixit of the first accused that he was at Wangsa Maju (in Kuala Lumpur). The notice of alibi mandated under Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code mentions persons acquainted with the fact of alibi. Yet, for reasons best known to the first accused, he chose not to call as witnesses the persons named in P430 (Azilah's girlfriend, Nur Azila Baharuddin).
"Now, my lord, it is trite that an adverse inference should not be drawn against an accused person for failure to call a particular witness or adduce evidence which he could have. Failure to call any witness or adduce evidence should not be made the subject of an adverse comment, and it must be emphasised that the prosecution is not doing that.
"What we are submitting is simply this, by failing to call his alibi witness, the first accused lost the chance of casting a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case," he said.
Littered with inconsistencies
Manoj also submitted that Azilah’s testimony is littered with inconsistencies, discrepancies and improbabilities, so much so, that only one inference is possible from it, the first accused is spinning a yarn.
"The first accused said he did not ask Abdul Razak why the Chinese woman and the Chinese man were extorting him ('ugut'). He also said DSP Musa Safri did not give him details about the problems faced by Abdul Razak.
"So why did the first accused not ask Abdul Razak what the 'ugut' was about? Wouldn't any reasonable police officer want to know? It is respectfully submitted that the evidence of the first accused here is inherently incredible," he said.
Manoj said Azilah's evidence was not in the least surprising for the following two reasons.
Firstly, he said: "The first accused admitted under cross-examination that he had full discretion as to what action to take with respect to the problem faced by Abdul Razak and that Abdul Razak left everything to him to solve his problem.
"Secondly, the first accused admitted, also under cross-examination, that as far as he was concerned, 'masalah Abdul Razak telah selesai pada malam itu juga' (Abdul Razak's problem had been settled that night itself). Then he quickly denied that he knew what had happened to the deceased. How could he know Abdul Razak's problem was already solved that very night without knowing what had happened to the deceased? The first accused got trapped in his own sticky web of lies here."
Prize for best fiction
Manoj also submitted that both accused now competed against each other for the prize for best fiction told in Court and that both versions ought to be rejected as not being able to cast a reasonable doubt as to their complicity and guilt in the murder of Altantuya.
"One critical matter for scrutiny arises here. If indeed it was the case that it was the second accused who was supposed to take the deceased back to the hotel, why continue the journey to Bukit Aman and do the transfer of the deceased there? Why not do it at the place where they had stopped?.
"The first accused said the second accused wanted to proceed on to Bukit Aman first but no explanation was given for this. The first accused was the superior officer of the second accused, but he appeared to have blindly followed the second accused to Bukit Aman, with no reasons being forwarded for this quaint behaviour. The defence of the two accused begs questions but answers none," Manoj said.
At the end of his submission, Manoj said the several strands of circumstantial evidence that the prosecution had painstakingly proved had remained un-rebutted, unexplained and unanswered by both accused in this case.
"The combined strength of those strands of evidence when twisted together has formed two ropes, strong enough to hang each accused person.
It is respectfully submitted that no reasonable doubt is cast on the prosecution's case by either accused. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused, warranting a conviction on the charge of murder committed in pursuance to a common intention of them both," he said.
View Comments0