Corpun file 18537
The Star, Kuala Lumpur, 3 October 2006
Receptionist in job con gets jail, rotan
IPOH: Receptionist P. Ramakrishnan, 28, admitted in a magistrate's court here yesterday that he had cheated 12 job seekers of RM6,240 and their international passports in 2003.
He had told a group of 18 job seekers that he could get them work as factory workers in Canada, knowing the jobs did not exist.
GUILTY: A court policeman escorting Ramakrishnan from an Ipoh magistrate's court after he was sentenced to 14 months' jail yesterday.
Trusting him, 12 of them gave him RM520 each to get their work permits and insurance coverage. They gave him the money at a house in Jalan Padang Tembak here.
He then bolted, leaving the job seekers in the lurch for three years.
Police nabbed Ramakrishnan, who is from Alor Star, this year after seeing him loitering in Kuala Lumpur on July 26.
Yesterday, magistrate Radzilawatee Abdul Rahman sentenced him to 14 months' jail, to start from the date of his arrest.
She also ordered him to be given one stroke of the rotan.
Ramakrishnan pleaded for a lighter sentence, claiming that he had two children to support and swearing that he would not commit the offence again.
He also asked the court to place him in Kajang prison to make it easier for his family to visit him.
According to the facts of the case, Ramakrishnan had been staying for two months in the house of contract worker M. Peter John in Jalan Padang Tembak.
On Sept 1, 2003, he asked Peter John to look for 18 Indian workers who might be interested in a factory job in Toronto.
After Peter John found the workers, Ramakrishnan asked for their passports and RM520 each for the permits and insurance. And after collecting RM6,240 from 12 of them, Ramakrishnan disappeared.
Peter John and the workers lodged a police report after failing to contact him.
© 1995-2005 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd
Corpun file 18501
The Star, Kuala Lumpur, 3 October 2006
Jailed 10 years for having drug mix
PENANG: A glassmaker was sentenced to 10 years' jail and ordered to be given 10 strokes of the rotan by a High Court here for having 30.73gm of a mixture of heroin and mono-acetylmorphines.
Lee Chin Chun, 31, was originally charged with trafficking in the drugs near an apartment block in Batu Lanchang here at 4.30pm on April 12, 2001.
When DPP Azlina Mahmod tendered an alternative charge of drug possession at the outset of the trial yesterday, Lee pleaded guilty to the lesser charge.
According to the statement of facts, Lee who was on a scooter was arrested in an ambush by 18 policemen.
A struggle ensued, whereby Lee sustained injuries to his hands, knees, head and face.
OFF TO JAIL: Lee being led away after receiving his sentence yesterday.
Police conducted a body search but found nothing in-criminating on him. The drug was later found in a plastic packet in a compartment of the scooter.
Defence counsel M.M. Athimulan said Lee left school after Form Two to work for his father.
Azlina asked for a deterrent sentence to help check the rising number of drug offences.
She also said that Lee resisted arrest but Judicial Commissioner Abdul Rahim Uda pointed out that the arresting team only identified themselves as policemen after they subdued him.
Abdul Rahim added: "He was ambushed by so many men, of course he put up a struggle. Who wouldn't?"
Abdul Rahim ordered the jail sentence to run from the date of Lee's arrest.
Lee was also represented by counsel T. Tamilselvan.
[...]
© 1995-2005 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd
Corpun file 18509
Daily Express, Kota Kinabalu, 7 October 2006
36 years and 10 strokes for teacher who raped deaf-mute pupil
Kota Kinabalu: A Special Education teacher who raped a 12-year-old deaf-mute pupil was jailed a total of 36 years' jail and 10 strokes of the cane, Friday.
Sessions Court Judge Ravinthran Paramaguru who said the case was one of the worst he had come across, handed 34-year-old Shamirul Salleh, 18 years jail and five strokes of the cane for each of the two counts he was charged with.
He ordered the terms to run concurrently, except the caning.
Shamirul was charged with committing both offences in a room on the third floor of the teachers' flat at the Special Education Primary School in Tuaran in 2003, between March 1-31 and between Nov 1-30.
"The accused is a teacher in a special school where his charges are deaf and mute. The accused as a teacher and warden had authority over the victim. He abused the trust placed in him by taking advantage of the defenceless victim," said Ravinthran.
"By right he should have been her protector by virtue of his position as a teacher and warden in that school." Ravinthran also said he did not find the accused to be a credible witness.
"For what it is worth, demeanour is a yardstick of credibility and the accused did not appear to be a truthful witness. He was very quick to deny that the victim could have come to his flat, as the teachers cannot invite them. But he later agreed that groups of students whose names he cannot remember came to his flat in the month of March."
The judge held that the fact the accused's wife worked from Mondays to Fridays from 8am to 4.30pm did not mean the accused had no opportunity as the victim (and a female friend) had claimed they were at the flat in the afternoon on the day in question.
"I found that (the female friend) was a very credible witness. She is not the alleged victim and she appears to me a completely disinterested witness in this case. Her testimony is that she and the victim went up the flat of the accused. The accused denies this. But as I believe her (victim's female friend) on this point, I find that the accused had the opportunity to be alone with the victim."
He asserted, in spite of allegations, unproven, of the victim's waywardness, he found it preposterous that she would concoct a lie to frame her teacher. "Although I am aware of the danger of convicting the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of an alleged victim in a sexual case, given the very credible and consistent evidence of the victim I think it is safe to rely on her evidence alone as it outweighs any inherent risk."
In respect of the November incident, the main defence of the accused was that he could not have committed the rape as he was with his wife on Nov. 1 and 2, 2003. On the afternoon of Nov. 2, the victim left for her house. The accused produced receipts of purchases he made on the two said days.
"As the DPP submitted, the receipts alone cannot prove that the accused was not in the hostel and had no opportunity to rape the victim. The issuer of the receipts was not called. There is no name on the receipts. The time of purchase is not stated on the receipts as well.
"The wife of the accused was not called to testify whether she was with the accused in the afternoon of Saturday, Nov. 1. Counsel even submitted that it was incumbent on the prosecution to call her and suggested they did not call her because her evidence could be unfavourable to them.
"I should think it is trite law that the prosecution is only required to call witnesses to unfold its case and not to call witnesses who could prove a possible alibi or defence for the accused.
"Be that as it may, it would be the word of the accused against that of the victim and her friend. The accused's denial and his statement that he was elsewhere is simply not enough to rebut the convincing testimony of the victim and her friend."
He further held that the theory that all the four female students of the school who testified had hatched a conspiracy against the accused just because he was not likeable was far-fetched.
As for the defence witnesses, Ravinthran said they did not give any evidence to exonerate Shamirul.
"DW5 (teacher) only said she took the victim from the school at 5pm on Nov 2. The charge is that the accused committed the rape on any date between Nov 1 and 30. As I said earlier, the accused had not convinced the court why the rape could not have been committed before the victim was taken by DW5 at 5pm on Nov2.
"As for the school office boy (DW2) his evidence was solely directed to support the accused's testimony that the girls and boys of the school were promiscuous. His evidence is highly suspect because it appears to have been exaggerated," he held.
DPP Raja Zaizul Faridah Raja Zaharuddin acted for the Public Prosecutor while counsel Albert Tokuzip represented Shamirul who has been granted a stay of execution pending his appeal. His bail of RM5,000 fully deposited in two sureties has been extended.
He is facing a third charge, which is ongoing, also involving a deaf student, then aged 14.
Counsel Mary Lee held a watching brief for the Sabah Society for the Deaf, the Malaysian Coalition for the Prevention of Child Abuse, and the Sabah Women Action Resource Group (Sawo).
Copyright © Daily Express, Sabah, Malaysia
Corpun file 18513
New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur, 14 October 2006
He rammed a cop and now pleads disability
By Noor Adzman Baharuddin
ALOR STAR: The amputee did not think twice before driving his car into a policeman last year. Muhammad Samri Hashim was not in the least bit concerned that he could have killed Detective Lance Corporal Johari Othman.
He just wanted to escape: Never mind the consequences.
And yet the 29-year-old, whose right leg has been amputated below the knee, tried to use his disability as a mitigating factor in court yesterday.
But Sessions Court judge Chan Jit Li was not moved, jailing him five years for attempted murder, with the sentence beginning from the date of arrest.
Samri, who was unrepresented, was charged with reckless handling of a Perodua Kancil in front of SJK (C) Keat Hwa at 6.40pm on July 7, 2005.
He has been in prison for 11 months after being found guilty of a dadah charge last November.
The amputee was then sentenced to three years' jail besides being ordered to receive four strokes of the rotan.
Deputy public prosecutor Azhar Mokhtar, asking for a deterrent sentence, said Samri's offence was heinous as it involved a policeman on duty.
"The policeman was not only trying to stop Samri from fleeing, he was also trying to prevent him from knocking into schoolchildren.
"Based on public interest and the facts of the case, a sentence should be meted out that will serve as a lesson to him and others," he said.
According to the facts of the case, police had earlier been involved in a car chase with Samri.
When he was near the school, he found his car surrounded by police cars and vehicles of parents waiting to pick up their children.
It was then that Samri ignored police orders to surrender and rammed his car into Johari.
© Copyright 2006 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved.
