PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that a trial judge's delay in supplying the grounds of judgment to a convict does not automatically render the decision vitiated and should be set aside.

In dismissing an appeal by housewife R. Amathevelli, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, the appellate court held that there was no evidence to show she suffered prejudice as the result of the delay.

Judge Datuk Raus Md Sharif, who sat with Datuk Wira Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Datuk Heliliah Yusof, said the court was of the view that in the administration of justice, it must be fair not only to the accused but also the state and society.

"It would not be fair to the state and society whose penal laws are made and administered if the accused is given an outright acquittal just because of the delay in supplying the grounds of judgment.

"This is especially so as the accused was found guilty of a serious crime of murder," he said.
Amathevelli, a 52-year-old mother of three, was tried in the Seremban High Court for murdering grocery shop owner A. Soosaiammah in Kampung Gatco, Air Hitam, Jempol, on May 17, 1998.

The trial ended on Nov 8, 2002, but the grounds of judgment were only supplied to her on Dec 5, 2007.

In her appeal, she sought to have the death sentence set aside alleging that the trial judge, Datuk Muhamad Ideres Muhammad Rapee, had failed to issue the grounds of judgment.

Amathevelli has been in custody for nine years and four months, including three years in remand.

Reading the 28-page of Court of Appeal judgment, Raus said there was no dispute that a delay had occurred on the part of the trial judge in providing his written judgment.

However, after scrutinising the notes of evidence and the grounds of judgment, the court did not have doubts that it was the accused who had murdered the deceased.

Taking the evidence as a whole, he said the court was of the view that the conviction of the accused was not only supported by the recovery of the deceased's gold chain from her but also strong circumstantial evidence.

Putting them together, it led to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who committed the crime, he said.

"In conclusion, we are unable to hold the decision by the trial judge not justifiable.

"The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are affirmed," Raus said. - Bernama