[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] XXXX

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] XXXX

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding grave and sudden provocation was proved because the respondent did not testify that he lost self-control, the defence was not put to the primary eyewitness, and the eyewitness and pathologist evidence established repeated, disproportionate stabbings from...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
S-05(SH)-170-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya); Respondent: Bakri bin Ruka
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Case Number
S-05(SH)-170-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Against Acquittal and Conviction Reduction)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trial court's reduction of murder to culpable homicide set aside and conviction for murder restored
Legal Topics
Murder, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, Provocation (grave and Sudden), Identification Evidence, Premeditation and Motive
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Murder Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder Provocation (grave and Sudden) Identification Evidence Premeditation and Motive

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

Parties

Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya)

Appellant

Bakri bin Ruka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Against Acquittal and Conviction Reduction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of grave and sudden provocation was proved on the balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misapplied the law when reducing murder to culpable homicide under Exception 1 to s300 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether the victim witness evidence and identification were reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding grave and sudden provocation was proved because the respondent did not testify that he lost self-control, the defence was not put to the primary eyewitness, and the eyewitness and pathologist evidence established repeated, disproportionate stabbings from which intent or knowledge of likely death could be inferred; accordingly the murder convictions under s302 were substituted and death sentences imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trial court's reduction of murder to culpable homicide set aside and conviction for murder restored

Orders

  • Allow the prosecution appeals
  • Substitute convictions under section 304(a) with convictions under section 302 Penal Code in both cases