[ ] Yew Wei Liang

[ ] Yew Wei Liang

Court affirmed conviction under s304(a) Penal Code and 16-year imprisonment; held High Court erred to rely on Exception 2 (private defence) but court nonetheless found appellant entitled to rely on Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) which reduced the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Exception 4 (sudden fight) did not apply because the confrontation was prolonged, there was cooling-off time and the accused took undue advantage/cruel means by using a motor vehicle.

Citation
B-05(SH)-630-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Yew Wei Liang; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-630-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (homicide) / Court of Appeal Judgment (hearing of Appeals by Appellant and Prosecution)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Murder (s302 Penal Code), Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (s300, S304), Exception 1 (provocation), Exception 2 (private Defence), Exception 4 (sudden Fight), Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Homicide Law Provocation and Self Defence Murder (s302 Penal Code) Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (s300, S304) Exception 1 (provocation) Exception 2 (private Defence) Exception 4 (sudden Fight) +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yew Wei Liang

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (homicide) / Court of Appeal Judgment (hearing of Appeals by Appellant and Prosecution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Exception 4 (sudden fight) to s300 Penal Code applied
  2. 2 Whether Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) applied
  3. 3 Whether Exception 2 (private defence) was rightly applied by trial court

Ratio Decidendi

Court affirmed conviction under s304(a) Penal Code and 16-year imprisonment; held High Court erred to rely on Exception 2 (private defence) but court nonetheless found appellant entitled to rely on Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) which reduced the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Exception 4 (sudden fight) did not apply because the confrontation was prolonged, there was cooling-off time and the accused took undue advantage/cruel means by using a motor vehicle.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Conviction under s 304(a) Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) affirmed.