Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Armed robbery

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2025

MOHAMED NORHASIF BIN NORWIRADIJAYA

Citation

WA-42H-9-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-9-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in law by omitting the mandatory whipping under section 397 for armed robbery and by ordering concurrent sentences for distinct serious offences; appellate court therefore added one whipping to the 7‑year armed robbery term and ordered the 7‑year term to run consecutively with the 10‑year term for sexual offences, yielding a total effective imprisonment of 17 years with seven canning strokes.
26 Nov 2025

MOHAMED NORHASIF BIN NORWIRADIJAYA

Citation

WA-42H-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Sessions Court erred by omitting the mandatory whipping under section 397 for armed robbery, added one whipping to the 7-year term for armed robbery, affirmed the 10-year terms and six whipppings for the sexual offences, and directed that the armed robbery sentence run consecutively to the sexual offences sentence, resulting in a total of 17 years' imprisonment and seven whippings; the appellant's appeal was dismissed and the Prosecution's appeal allowed in part.
13 Oct 2025

CHAI KONG WEE @ CHIA KONG WEE

Citation

BA-45D-2-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45D-2-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The accused's unqualified guilty plea was validly accepted; aggravating factors (discharge of a firearm in public during a bank robbery and multiple prior serious offences) outweighed mitigation (early plea and antisocial personality disorder which did not impair responsibility); statute prescribes a minimum of 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes; sentence ordered accordingly and to commence upon completion of the sentence for Case 45B-18-08/2023 under section 292 CPC.
16 Aug 2024

Muhamad Khairuldin Bin Shahrun

Citation

BA-42H-25-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42H-25-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the prosecution's eyewitness testimony credible and sufficient to prove the robberies and use of a parang; discrepancies about the parang's precise shape and failure to produce it were non‑material; identification by SP1 and SP3 was reliable on the facts (proximity, duration, lighting, prior acquaintance) and the trial court's findings on identification should not be disturbed; and the absence of Saharudin did not attract s114(g) because there was no deliberate concealment and he was not a key witness. Therefore the appellate challenge failed and the convictions and concurrent…
19 Jul 2024

TENGKU IZWAN SHAH BIN TENGKU AZMAN

Citation

AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-62RS-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Because the accused committed two separate robberies on different dates and at different locations, the court treated them as distinct offences and, applying s292(1) CPC and relevant authorities, ordered the sentence for the present conviction to commence after the existing sentence and to run consecutively; the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by public interest and seriousness of the offences.
21 May 2024

AZIZUL BIN AHMAD

Citation

AC-62RS-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62RS-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the use of a deadly weapon, injuries to two distinct victims and separate losses, the court held the statutory range permits the imposed punishment; a one‑third discount was applied for the guilty plea but no further mitigation was warranted; because the offences harmed two different persons the sentences for the two robberies were ordered to run consecutively; the resulting sentence (5 years imprisonment and two strokes per charge) is lawful, proportionate and not crushing.
17 May 2024

1. ) MOHAMAD AZRUL AZHAM BIN MOHD ROLZAMAN 2. ) MOHD HAFIZUDIN BIN MOHD SHAH

Citation

BF-62RS-8-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BF-62RS-8-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court accepted the early guilty pleas as a mitigating factor but held that the gravity of gang robbery with a deadly weapon, the trauma and loss to the victim and the public interest in deterrence outweighed full mitigation; accordingly the original sentence of 10 years imprisonment from date of arrest and 4 strokes of the rotan is reasonable and is affirmed.
18 Oct 2023

MOHD AZHARI BIN UMAR ALI

Citation

BA-42H-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42H-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed that the trial judge acted within lawful discretion; the 9-year concurrent prison terms with 3 strokes per count were not grossly excessive given armed nature of offences, two victims, applicant's prior related conviction, and public interest in deterrence; mitigation did not outweigh aggravating factors, so appeal is dismissed.
6 Sept 2022

Muhamad Khairuldin Bin Shahrun

Citation

BA-62RS-12-03/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62RS-12-03/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved all essential elements of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt: victims gave consistent and credible identification supported by recovery of stolen items from third parties and accused's household; hearsay objections rejected because exhibits were recovered by investigators and corroborated by victims; SP7's court testimony was impeached under s.155 and excluded; s.114(g) did not apply; accused's alibi was an unsupported afterthought without required notice; therefore guilty on both counts under s.392 read with s.397 KK.
16 Aug 2022

1. ) MUHAMMAD JALALUDDIN BIN MOHD AZHAR 2. ) MUHAMMAD FUAD BIN ARNAS YANNANTA

Citation

WA-62RS-115-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62RS-115-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

After balancing aggravating factors (use of weapons, violence, seriousness of armed robbery) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, family responsibilities), and applying established sentencing principles and statutory limits, the court imposed a custodial sentence of three years and four strokes of the cane as a proportionate and lawful punishment that also affords deterrence.