TAUFIK HIDAYAH BIN ABDULLAH

TAUFIK HIDAYAH BIN ABDULLAH

Court held there was no miscarriage of justice: trial judge properly assessed credibility and proximity of SP3, supported by scene evidence and forensics; common intention under s.34 established; failure to call Pathma did not prejudice defence sufficiently to warrant reversal; spousal evidence (SP18) admissible as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
N-05(SH)-321-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Taufik Hidayah bin Abdullah; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Case Number
N-05(SH)-321-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Grievous Hurt, Common Intention, Identification Evidence, Spousal Communication Privilege, Adverse Inference S.114(g)
Criminal Law Evidence Law Appellate Procedure Murder Grievous Hurt Common Intention Identification Evidence Spousal Communication Privilege +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taufik Hidayah bin Abdullah

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in preferring one eyewitness (SP3) and rejecting another (SP6) leading to misdirection on facts
  2. 2 Whether common intention under s.34 Penal Code was proven to support murder conviction under s.302
  3. 3 Whether adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act should have been drawn for failure to call Pathma

Ratio Decidendi

Court held there was no miscarriage of justice: trial judge properly assessed credibility and proximity of SP3, supported by scene evidence and forensics; common intention under s.34 established; failure to call Pathma did not prejudice defence sufficiently to warrant reversal; spousal evidence (SP18) admissible as given and corroborative; convictions under s.302 and s.326 and imposed sentences were safe and upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions under s.302 and s.326 Penal Code upheld