[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] XXXX

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] XXXX

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in accepting grave and sudden provocation because the respondent did not testify that he lost self-control, the defence was not properly raised or put to the crucial eyewitness, and the eyewitness evidence together with pathologist's report established multiple deliberate stab wounds causing death; therefore the convictions under s.304(a) were substituted with convictions for murder under s.302 Penal Code and the death sentence was imposed for each count.

Citation
S-05(SH)-169-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Bakri bin Ruka
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Case Number
S-05(SH)-169-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (murder) / Appeal — Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court finding of provocation set aside; convictions substituted to murder under section 302 Penal Code; death sentence imposed for each count.
Legal Topics
Murder, Culpable Homicide, Provocation, Identification Evidence, Sentence (death)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Penal Code Evidence Act Murder Culpable Homicide Provocation Identification Evidence Sentence (death)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Bakri bin Ruka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (murder) / Appeal — Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of grave and sudden provocation was proved on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide under Exception 1 to s.300 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should substitute convictions and impose sentence of death

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in accepting grave and sudden provocation because the respondent did not testify that he lost self-control, the defence was not properly raised or put to the crucial eyewitness, and the eyewitness evidence together with pathologist's report established multiple deliberate stab wounds causing death; therefore the convictions under s.304(a) were substituted with convictions for murder under s.302 Penal Code and the death sentence was imposed for each count.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court finding of provocation set aside; convictions substituted to murder under section 302 Penal Code; death sentence imposed for each count.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Convictions under section 304(a) set aside and substituted with convictions for murder under section 302 Penal Code in both cases