[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMAD NAIM SYAFIQ BIN MASURI

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMAD NAIM SYAFIQ BIN MASURI

The court convicted because the prosecution established both essential elements of Section 457 read with Section 34: physical entry into the complainant's house and intent to steal. This was proven by reliable witness testimony of co‑offender SP5 corroborated by fingerprint expert P4/P6 linking the accused's prints to items used to store the stolen money; the amended charge was lawful and not prejudicial; the accused's defence was an unsupported afterthought and did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Citation
CB-83RS-18-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Mohamad Naim Syafiq bin Masuri
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Case Number
CB-83RS-18-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Housebreaking (section 457 Penal Code) / Trial — Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted on amended charge P11 (Section 457 read with Section 34 Penal Code)
Legal Topics
Housebreaking, Burglary, Common Intention (section 34), Fingerprint Evidence, Accomplice Evidence, Charge Amendment, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Housebreaking Burglary Common Intention (section 34) Fingerprint Evidence Accomplice Evidence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Mohamad Naim Syafiq bin Masuri

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Housebreaking (section 457 Penal Code) / Trial — Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved a prima facie case under Section 457 read with Section 34
  2. 2 Whether common intention between accused and co-actor (SP5) was established
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of accomplice testimony and fingerprint evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court convicted because the prosecution established both essential elements of Section 457 read with Section 34: physical entry into the complainant's house and intent to steal. This was proven by reliable witness testimony of co‑offender SP5 corroborated by fingerprint expert P4/P6 linking the accused's prints to items used to store the stolen money; the amended charge was lawful and not prejudicial; the accused's defence was an unsupported afterthought and did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on amended charge P11 (Section 457 read with Section 34 Penal Code)

Orders

  • Sentence: 2 years imprisonment from date of conviction
  • Fine of RM3000; in default 3 months imprisonment