Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causing hurt (section 323 penal code)

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMMAD SUBRI BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

CB-82-9-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-82-9-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence and credibility findings the court concluded the complainant sustained injuries corroborated by medical report, the accused's act of pushing was a conscious aggressive act from which knowledge that it could cause hurt could be inferred, provocation was not grave and sudden, parties were married so s.326A applied; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction entered under s.323 read with s.326A and sentence imposed.
3 Jan 2024

1. ) PRAKASH A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) KARUNAGARAN A/L ARJUNAN

Citation

J-09-53-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

J-09-53-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

A plastic chair used in a riot in a manner that causes injury qualifies as 'any weapon' under section 148 Penal Code when assessed by its capacity and manner of use; however the High Court exceeded its revisionary powers by substituting conviction and recording sentence on an amended charge under its revision power — the proper course when elements of the original charge are not made out is to set aside the guilty plea and remit for trial rather than to amend and convict on a different substantive offence on revision.
13 Jul 2022

[ ] HATMAN RIZA BIN RADZUN

Citation

BA-41LB(A)-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

BA-41LB(A)-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the prosecution's appeal because the Magistrate did not misdirect in law: the Magistrate properly exercised discretion in admitting the video under s9 Evidence Act, properly assessed the totality of prosecution and defence evidence and reasonably found that the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's intent to cause hurt; those factual findings are entitled to appellate deference and there were no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb them.

Malaysia Case Law

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUHAMMAD SUBRI BIN ZAKARIA

1. ) PRAKASH A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) KARUNAGARAN A/L ARJUNAN

[ ] HATMAN RIZA BIN RADZUN