Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common intention (section 34 penal code)

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2026

1. ) BUI THI NGAN 2. ) BUI VAN NOI 3. ) BUI VAN ANH 4. ) LIM HENG HUI

Citation

CA-62ES-15-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62ES-15-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the totality of surveillance evidence, agreed facts, expert identification and witness testimony (including owner/occupier evidence), the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the seized protected wildlife parts and traps were being stored at the premises and vehicles, and that the three defendants had knowledge and common intention to commit the offences under sections 68(1)(b), 60(1)(b) and 29(1) read with section 34; accordingly the prosecution established the offences and the defendants were convicted and sentenced.
9 Jan 2026

MUHAMMAD AZIM BIN MUHAMAD ADNAN

Citation

JA-42R(A)-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial judge’s credibility findings for PW4 and the evidential record established that First, Second and Fourth appellants actively solicited, obtained and facilitated corrupt payments; statutory presumption under s.50(1) MACC Act 2009 arose and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities by affirmative evidence; Second appellant’s acts satisfied attempt when interrupted by MACC trap; Third appellant’s conviction could not be sustained because prosecution produced no evidence of any act or facilitation by him and principal witnesses and investigator conceded absence of evidence of his per…
9 Jan 2026

1. ) MOHAMAD ZULHISHAM BIN ZULKAFLI 2. ) MOHAMED SYUKUR BIN GULAM MOHAMED

Citation

JA-42R(A)-5-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-5-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Convictions of First, Second and Fourth Appellants were upheld because credible eyewitness evidence established active solicitation and receipt of corrupt gratification, the statutory presumption under section 50(1) MACC Act arose and was not rebutted on balance of probabilities, and their individual acts amounted to participation in furtherance of a common intention under section 34; Second Appellant additionally committed an attempt by overt acts; Third Appellant’s convictions were set aside because prosecution produced no evidence of any act, statement or receipt by him beyond mere presenc…
9 Jan 2026

Mohd Shahir Bin Ahmad Dewi - Dalam Jaminan

Citation

JA-42R(A)-2-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-2-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court upheld convictions and concurrent four-year sentences for First, Second and Fourth Appellants because PW4's testimony and corroborating circumstances proved corrupt solicitation of RM7,000 and corrupt obtaining of RM1,600, the statutory presumption under s.50 arose and was not rebutted by affirmative evidence, and section 34 liability was established by active participation; Third Appellant's convictions were quashed because prosecution produced no evidence of any act, statement or participation by him to satisfy the participation element required by s.34.
18 Jun 2025

1. ) CHUA HOCK BENG 2. ) LEE KEE TEIK

Citation

KA-45A-42-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-42-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although possession and forensic identification of large quantities of dangerous drugs were established, the prosecution failed to exclude reasonable doubt as to exclusive possession and common intention because of conflicting contemporaneous statements, evidence of third‑party access and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses; therefore conviction was unsafe and the accused was acquitted.
5 Dec 2024

Goh Jit Ee [Pegawai Pendakwa]

Citation

P-05(SH)-548-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

P-05(SH)-548-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the trial judge: the identification evidence (victim and aunty at parade and in court) was reliable under Turnbull analysis; information and conduct of the accused led to discovery of ransom money and was admissible under s.27; serial-number matching and corroborating witness evidence established a ransom demand; the collective conduct supported an inference of common intention under s.34; cumulatively these facts satisfied proof beyond reasonable doubt, so convictions and sentences were affirmed.
9 May 2024

MOHAMAD IQMAL BIN ZULKIFLI [ ]

Citation

C-05(M)-258-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

C-05(M)-258-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court exercised the statutory discretion conferred by Act 846 to commute the mandatory death sentences to long terms of imprisonment and caning after weighing seriousness of offence, roles of each appellant, mitigation (youth, first offence, remorse), and public interest; imposed 30 years and 32 years imprisonment respectively with 12 strokes each as proportionate punishment under the Act.
27 Mar 2024

JAMES A/L KOLANDAISAMY [ ]

Citation

B-09-186-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-09-186-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellate court upheld convictions because the totality of evidence established that appellants dishonestly induced delivery of RM3.4 million by representing authority to secure a joint-development, diverted those stakeholder funds for other purposes (documented transfers and purchases), and possessed the requisite knowledge or reasonable suspicion that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity; the trial judge’s credibility findings were entitled to deference and there was sufficient evidence of common intention and money laundering.
31 Dec 2023

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] 1. ) MOHD RAZEF BIN MOHAMED HARIP 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRULIMAN BIN JOHARI

Citation

JF-83-587-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JF-83-587-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution did not prove a prima facie case because it failed to show that the accused ever requested RM40,000 or engaged in overt acts directed to consummating cheating; material gaps existed (incomplete forensic report and failure to call material witness Dato' Mohd Faridz) giving rise to adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act; on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent, therefore accused were discharged and acquitted without calling defence.
27 Oct 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] NAVUKARASAN A/L RETHINASINGAM

Citation

BA-45B-31-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-31-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for murder under s302 because mens rea under s300(c) could not be inferred from the evidence; however the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s304(a). Accordingly the charge was amended to s304(a) under s158 CrPC, the accused were called to defend, and the court granted a stay of defence proceedings pending disposal of the prosecution's appeal to prevent rendering that appeal nugatory.