YouTube sensation Pavithra told to submit letter to prosecution to have proceedings against husband halted

Malaysian YouTube sensation S. Pavithra is seen at the Magistrate Court in Ipoh as her husband M. Sugu claims trial to possession of a dangerous weapon in a public place, July 24, 2020. — Picture by Farhan Najib
Malaysian YouTube sensation S. Pavithra is seen at the Magistrate Court in Ipoh as her husband M. Sugu claims trial to possession of a dangerous weapon in a public place, July 24, 2020. — Picture by Farhan Najib

IPOH, Aug 17 — The Sessions Court here today set Sept 8 to mention the case involving YouTuber S.Pavithra’s husband, M. Sugu, who was charged with possession of offensive weapon in public and causing injury to the woman.

Judge Norashima Khalid set the date following a request by deputy public prosecutor Liyana Zawani Mohd Radzi for Pavithra, 28, to write an official letter for the prosecution to not proceed with the case against her husband.

The YouTuber was given until Sept 8 to submit the letter.

Last July 24, Sugu, 29, had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Sugu, a former estate worker in Sungai Siput, was alleged to have assaulted Pavithra, 28, using a mobile phone and a sickle which caused injuries to her lips, left cheek and right arm at the parking lot of Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital (HRPB) here between 4pm and 6pm on July 21.

The charge, under Section 324 of the Penal Code and read together with Section 326A of the Penal Code, carries a jail term of up to 10 years or a fine or whipping or with any two of such punishments upon conviction.

Following the incident, Pavithra lodged a police report at the Sungai Senam police station,  but withdrew it last July 22.

Sugu was also charged with carrying a sickle at a parking area at Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital (HRPB) here at about 6 pm on July 21.

The offence, under Section 6 (1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, provides an imprisonment for up to 10 years, if found guilty.

Liyana, when met by reporters after the proceeding, said the prosecution would refer the case to the State Prosecution Director after receiving the letter from Pavithra, represented by lawyer S. Sundarajan. — Bernama

Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *