Lawyers representing two accused individuals found guilty of murdering deputy public prosecutor Datuk Anthony Kevin Morais argued in the Court of Appeal that there is insufficient evidence to prove their clients’ involvement in his death. The lawyers stated that the evidence only suggests an offense of kidnapping or hiding evidence. Amer Hamzah Arshad, representing S Nimalan, claimed that his client’s role was merely to show the location where the barrel containing Kevin’s body was disposed of, and he did not know the contents of the barrel. The cause of death, asphyxiation, could not determine how Kevin died, therefore making the murder conviction unsafe. The pathologist’s findings revealed no signs of struggle or physical trauma that caused Kevin’s death. Amer Hamzah argued that the trial judge was mistaken in concluding that Nimalan was involved in the murder.
Amer Hamzah further argued that Nimalan should only be charged with kidnapping or hiding evidence, rather than murder. He suggested that a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Penal Code may be more appropriate. Kitson Foong, representing S Ravi Chandran, also stated that there was no evidence of common intention to commit murder. Foong cited the testimony of another accused, G Gunasekaran, who pleaded guilty to disposing of evidence and served a two-year jail sentence. Foong claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged common intention to commit murder.
The appeal hearing, presided over by a three-member bench, is set to continue on December 14. The bench consists of Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, and Datuk Azmi Arifin. The counsel for another accused, M Vishwanath, is expected to submit his appeal, followed by the prosecution’s reply. Gunasekaran’s evidence was also scrutinized, as he was freed from the murder charge despite being present at the scene. The defense suggested that he may have testified to implicate others in his own interests.