Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arson

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2025

KARTIK A/L KRISHNAN

Citation

BC-62-33-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-62-33-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given CCTV evidence and witness accounts establishing that the accused wilfully set fire causing total loss and spread to other vehicles, the offence is serious; mitigating factors (early plea, claimed health/family circumstances) were insufficient or unsupported by evidence; guilty plea does not automatically warrant a reduced sentence; mandatory custodial sentence appropriate — six years imprisonment from date of arrest is justified and imposed.
31 Oct 2025

MFORCE BIKE HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-827-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-827-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's supporting documents were forged or fabricated, the fire was incendiary and deliberately set by the plaintiff or with its connivance, the plaintiff suffered no actual pecuniary loss because it had not paid for the goods, and therefore the defendant rightfully repudiated the claim under Condition 15; although the contractual three‑month limitation is void under s29 Contracts Act, the substantive findings of fraud and lack of loss independently require dismissal of the claim.
18 Jun 2025

1. ) OOI HONG LEONG 2. ) CHIN ZI PING

Citation

JA-62-89-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-62-89-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant convicted on his voluntary guilty plea and admitted facts supported by forensic, CCTV and fire department evidence; given the seriousness of deliberate arson, risk to life, presence of intimidation, and defendant's prior convictions, court imposed a substantive custodial sentence of 4 years and a fine of RM5,000 (or 6 months imprisonment on default), with imprisonment to run from date of conviction and to run separately from the existing sentence in case JA-62-88-06/2025.
7 Apr 2025

M.R.M. PLANTATION PTE LTD 1. ) LIM GUEK YAN 2. ) TAI TONG SING BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar

Citation

KA-24NCvC-233-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24NCvC-233-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden on the balance of probabilities to prove that the defendants intentionally set fire to the premises and consequently failed to establish liability or entitlement to any damages; therefore all claims are dismissed.
7 Apr 2025

M.R.M. PLANTATION PTE LTD 1. ) LIM GUEK YAN 2. ) TAI TONG SING

Citation

KA-22NCvC-48-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-48-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden on the balance of probabilities to prove that the defendants intentionally caused the fire; there was no evidence linking the defendants to the arson despite police investigation, therefore all claims based on that causation failed and were dismissed.
14 Mar 2025

SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD LIBERTY INSURANCE BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN CHONG YING KEONG

Citation

WA-22NCC-329-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-329-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Insurers failed to discharge the burden of proving deliberate ignition or breach of the storage warranty because (a) scientific evidence of incendiary origin was unreliable or absent (GCMS testing and sampling methodology defective, lack of comparison samples, problematic interpretation), (b) fire had progressed to flashover/full room involvement rendering post-fire visual pattern analysis unreliable, and (c) the storage-quantity measurement methodology was unreliable; therefore the fire is found accidental and the warranty not breached, insurers remain liable.
2 Sept 2024

[ ] KANG CHANG HENG

Citation

B-05(LB)-513-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

B-05(LB)-513-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the High Court erred in rejecting the child eyewitness identification and in excluding or discounting the accused's pointing and medical/forensic evidence; the direct identification by SP1 together with admissible circumstantial evidence (s27/s8 discoveries and medical/forensic evidence) cumulatively established a prima facie case on the four murder charges, so the acquittal was set aside and the respondent must be called to enter defence.
25 Oct 2023

PENAMA XXXX

Citation

BJ-84-9-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-84-9-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the guilty pleas as voluntary and properly recorded, gave weight to the JKM report and mitigating factors (age, first offence, parental willingness) but also to public interest and seriousness of destruction of public property, and therefore imposed a non‑custodial but significant rehabilitative and deterrent order: 100 hours community service to be completed within 6 months plus a 2‑year good behaviour bond for parents/guardians secured by RM1000.
7 Jul 2023

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) QISTINA BATRISYIA BINTI MOHD SALLEH 2. ) BIBI SHAKIRA BINTI SAMSUDDIN

Citation

WA-62-76-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62-76-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved cause and effect of fire and damage under Section 436 but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrators; CCTV was inconclusive and owner identification was unreliable and not corroborated; therefore no prima facie case existed and accused were discharged without being called to answer.