Raju and Others v. Attorney General – sllr 2003 volume 3 page 116

In the case between Raju and Others (Plaintiffs) and the Attorney-General (Defendant), the court addressed whether a common murderous intention existed among the accused as required under section 32 of the Penal Code for a conviction of murder. The findings established that the trial judge failed to properly assess each accused’s mental element and individual involvement in the alleged crime. The verdict determined that the evidence did not demonstrate a pre-arranged or unified plan to commit murder among all accused, as required by precedents such as King v Assappu and Punchi Banda v The Queen. The judgment resulted in the conviction of the 3rd accused being substituted with a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, an