1. MOHD KHAIRUL HAFIZ BIN YAAKOB 2. AZLAN BIN ABDUL KADIR

1. MOHD KHAIRUL HAFIZ BIN YAAKOB 2. AZLAN BIN ABDUL KADIR

The appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence quashed because the Sessions Court failed to make the mandatory distinct findings required by section 173 CrPC at the close of prosecution and at the close of defence, rendering the conviction unsafe and incapable of proper appellate re‑examination.

Citation
WA-42S(A)-4-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Khairul Hafiz bin Yaakob; Appellant: Azlan bin Abdul Kadir; Appellant: Amran bin Md Sali; Accused (deceased): Khairon Zaidee bin Basiron; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Case Number
WA-42S(A)-4-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed
Legal Topics
Kidnapping (s365 Penal Code), Common Intention (s34 Penal Code), Mandatory Trial Findings (s173 Cr Pc), Prima Facie Finding, Identification Evidence and Turnbull Guidelines, CCTV and Electronic Evidence Admissibility (s90 a Evidence Act), Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witnesses (s114 Evidence Act), Appellate Powers (s316 Cr Pc), Accomplice Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Homicide Kidnapping (s365 Penal Code) Common Intention (s34 Penal Code) Mandatory Trial Findings (s173 Cr Pc) Prima Facie Finding +5 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 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Khairul Hafiz bin Yaakob

Appellant

Azlan bin Abdul Kadir

Appellant

Amran bin Md Sali

Appellant

Khairon Zaidee bin Basiron

Accused (deceased)

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge complied with mandatory findings under section 173(f),(h),(m) CrPC at close of prosecution and at close of defence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved each element of s365 Penal Code and common intention under s34 beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether identification evidence complied with Turnbull guidelines and was reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence quashed because the Sessions Court failed to make the mandatory distinct findings required by section 173 CrPC at the close of prosecution and at the close of defence, rendering the conviction unsafe and incapable of proper appellate re‑examination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction and sentence quashed