MUHAMMAD AZWAN BIN ZULKARNAI [ ]

MUHAMMAD AZWAN BIN ZULKARNAI [ ]

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge correctly rejected the insanity defence: psychiatric report showed substance‑induced psychosis had resolved and affirmed mental capacity at the material time; the appellant's deliberate actions (entry, seizure of firearm, loading and aiming, two shots causing fatal injuries, flight and concealment) and forensic evidence demonstrated cognitive capacity and intent. The appellant failed to satisfy the burden under s105 EA on a balance of probabilities and no adverse inference under s114(g) EA arose.

Citation
D-05(SH)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Muhammad Azwan bin Zulkarnai; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 April 2025
Case Number
D-05(SH)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal Against High Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Murder, Evidential Burden, Appellate Review, Forensic Medical Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Psychiatry Insanity Defence Murder Evidential Burden Appellate Review Forensic Medical Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Azwan bin Zulkarnai

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal Against High Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the defence of insanity under section 84 Penal Code (legal insanity)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the burden under section 105 Evidence Act to prove unsoundness of mind on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference under section 114(g) Evidence Act should be drawn for failure to call the investigating officer

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge correctly rejected the insanity defence: psychiatric report showed substance‑induced psychosis had resolved and affirmed mental capacity at the material time; the appellant's deliberate actions (entry, seizure of firearm, loading and aiming, two shots causing fatal injuries, flight and concealment) and forensic evidence demonstrated cognitive capacity and intent. The appellant failed to satisfy the burden under s105 EA on a balance of probabilities and no adverse inference under s114(g) EA arose.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed