MOHAMAD NIZAM BIN ABD MUTTALIB

MOHAMAD NIZAM BIN ABD MUTTALIB

Prosecution evidence (eyewitness testimony by SP1 and SP2 supported by photographs and inventory) was credible and, when evaluated maximally, proved the essential elements of all three offences beyond reasonable doubt; defendant's explanations were uncorroborated, inconsistent and amounted to bare denials, therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MA-62-79-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Mohamad Nizam bin Abd Muttalib
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Case Number
MA-62-79-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Conviction and Sentencing (trial Concluded; Defence Heard; Sentenced)
Outcome
Defendant found guilty on all three charges and convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Assault on Public Servant (s.353 Penal Code), Possession of Offensive Weapon (s.6(1) Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958), Dangerous Driving (s.42(1) Road Transport Act 1987), Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution
Criminal Law Traffic Law Offensive Weapons Law Assault on Public Servant (s.353 Penal Code) Possession of Offensive Weapon (s.6(1) Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958) Dangerous Driving (s.42(1) Road Transport Act 1987) Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohamad Nizam bin Abd Muttalib

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Conviction and Sentencing (trial Concluded; Defence Heard; Sentenced)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case on each charge
  2. 2 Whether elements of s.353 were proved (assault/criminal force on public servant in execution of duty)
  3. 3 Whether kerambit was an offensive weapon in defendant's possession in a public place (s.6(1))

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution evidence (eyewitness testimony by SP1 and SP2 supported by photographs and inventory) was credible and, when evaluated maximally, proved the essential elements of all three offences beyond reasonable doubt; defendant's explanations were uncorroborated, inconsistent and amounted to bare denials, therefore guilty on all counts and convicted.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty on all three charges and convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Count 1 (s.353 Penal Code): Fine RM5,000.00, default six (6) months imprisonment
  • Count 2 (s.6(1) Offensive Weapons Act 1958): Imprisonment five (5) years from date of sentence and one (1) stroke of the rotan