MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHD RUSELI [ ]

MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHD RUSELI [ ]

The High Court held the prosecution established all elements of Section 326: appellant (with another) caused grievous hurt intentionally using a weapon; police reports P1 and P9 were admissible because their makers testified and identified them; the discovery of the wooden implement P5 by the appellant satisfied Section 27 and linked the weapon to the injuries corroborated by medical evidence; common intention under Section 34 was established by eyewitnesses; absence of peripheral witnesses did not warrant adverse inference; trial judge properly assessed defence and mitigation; therefore conviction and sentence were upheld.

Citation
DA-42S-7-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (perayu): Mohd Faiz bin Mohd Ruseli; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Case Number
DA-42S-7-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence / High Court Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Grievous Hurt (section 326 Penal Code), Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code), Admissibility of Police Reports (section 76 Evidence Act 1950), Discovery Evidence (section 27 Evidence Act 1950), Adverse Inference (section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Assessment of Defence Evidence, Excessive Sentence Challenge
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Sentencing Grievous Hurt (section 326 Penal Code) Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code) Admissibility of Police Reports (section 76 Evidence Act 1950) Discovery Evidence (section 27 Evidence Act 1950) +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Faiz bin Mohd Ruseli

Appellant (perayu)

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence / High Court Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved elements of Section 326 Penal Code
  2. 2 Admissibility of police reports P1 and P9 under Section 76 Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Admissibility of discovery evidence P5 under Section 27 Evidence Act 1950 and relevance under Section 8(2) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the prosecution established all elements of Section 326: appellant (with another) caused grievous hurt intentionally using a weapon; police reports P1 and P9 were admissible because their makers testified and identified them; the discovery of the wooden implement P5 by the appellant satisfied Section 27 and linked the weapon to the injuries corroborated by medical evidence; common intention under Section 34 was established by eyewitnesses; absence of peripheral witnesses did not warrant adverse inference; trial judge properly assessed defence and mitigation; therefore conviction and sentence were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under Section 326 Kanun Keseksaan affirmed