Pubdate: Fri, 20 Jan 2006
Source: Malay Mail (Malaysia)
Copyright: 2006 The New Straits Times Press
Contact:  http://www.mmail.com.my/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3834
Author: Jothi Jeyasingam
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/heroin.htm (Heroin)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Death+Penalty (Death Penalty)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration)

SAVED FROM THE GALLOWS

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20:

A car repossessor wept tears of relief when the High Court here
discharged and acquitted him of trafficking 60.2gm of heroin and
monoacetmorphine six years ago.

The reality that he had escaped the gallows, at first did not quite
sink in for K. Puvaneaswaran, 31.

After Justice Datuk S. Augus-tine Paul acquitted him, he turned to a
court policeman who nodded and smiled in reassurance.

Then a teary-eyed Puvaneas-waran turned to his wife and mother in the
public gallery who were equally moved.

As soon as he walked out of the dock, Puvaneaswaran embraced his
counsel J. Kuldeep Kumar, and thanked him.

Puvaneaswaran was initially charged with trafficking at the High Court
on Sept 14, 2000. At the end of the prosecution's case, Paul reduced
the charge to possession, and the accused pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to 10 years in jail and 10 strokes of the rotan.

The prosecution, however, brought the matter to the Appeals Court,
which ordered Puvaneaswaran to enter his defence on the original
charge of trafficking.

However, after a three-day trial earlier this week, Paul, in his brief
oral judgment, said he found that Puvaneaswaran did not have exclusive
control over the drugs.

Paul said that although Puvaneaswaran was a tenant of the house where
the drugs were found, he was outside when police entered the house and
found the drugs in the room.

The judge questioned why the prosecution did not explain how police
went into the house, like whether they had the keys or not.

Paul said there must be evidence of possession before the question of
trafficking can arise, and it has to be proven that the accused had
exclusive possession and control of the room.

Paul said he was satisfied that there was enough evidence to show that
Puvaneaswaran did not have exclusive possession of the room.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Tom