Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Death penalty

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2025

JIVA A/L GOPAL KRISHNAN

Citation

05(RJ)-11-12/2024(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

05(RJ)-11-12/2024(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that on a literal reading of Act 847 ss2(1) and 4(1) persons who had already been granted pardons under Article 42 are not within the category 'any person who has been sentenced to death' for the purposes of making an application under s3(1); furthermore the courts have no jurisdiction to review or set aside decisions of the Pardons Board or the royal prerogative of mercy, and therefore the majority decision dated 27.8.2024 was ultra vires and is set aside.
4 Nov 2025

Mohd Nur Hussein Bin Mohd Salleh [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

A-05(SH)-382-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

A-05(SH)-382-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was affirmed because the cumulative circumstantial evidence formed a complete and irresistible chain: the accused led police to concealed items belonging to the victim (admissible under s27/s8), DNA on seized items linked them to the deceased, credible independent recognition by SP15 placed the accused near the scene, and the alibi was unreliable and inconsistent with objective evidence; on sentencing the Court found premeditation, extreme brutality, planning and attempts to conceal and thus imposed death as the only appropriate penalty under 'rarest of rare' principles.
3 Jun 2025

[ ] MUHAMAD SYAFIQ BIN ROSLI

Citation

KA-45A-27-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-27-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence the court found the chemist's analysis reliable and the chain of custody sufficiently established despite a missing single marked packet; accused was sole driver in close proximity to 533 compressed blocks totalling 507,965.60 grams and had custody, control and knowledge (inference from close proximity, concealment, strong odour and demeanor); transporting a very large concealed quantity satisfied the overt act required for trafficking under s.2 and s.39B DDA 1952; therefore prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt and the court lawfull…
11 Nov 2024

Mahathir Bin Usman [ ]

Citation

S-05(M)-508-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

S-05(M)-508-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Conviction was affirmed on evidence and statutory presumption; pursuant to the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 which vests sentencing discretion, and with the prosecution's agreement, the Court set aside the death sentence and substituted it with life imprisonment for thirty years from date of arrest and twelve strokes of whipping based on the totality of evidence, sentencing factors pleaded and statutory framework.
21 Oct 2024

SYAHADAN BIN OTHMAN SABANG [ ]

Citation

Q-05(M)-303-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

Q-05(M)-303-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Given the AMDP 2023 which permits judicial discretion, the facts showed a robbery resulting in death without evidence of premeditation or exceptional brutality warranting death; therefore the death sentences were disproportionate and were set aside and substituted with 35 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for each appellant.
21 Oct 2024

JEEJI TING KIM LEONG [ ]

Citation

Q-05(M)-302-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

Q-05(M)-302-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 the court exercised its newly conferred discretion and held that the facts did not constitute an ‘extreme’ case warranting death; the High Court’s imposition of death was therefore set aside and substituted with a determinate prison term (35 years) and 15 strokes of the cane, to run from date of arrest.
5 Feb 2024

MOHAMMAD SOHFFIAN BIN ABU HASSAN [ ]

Citation

Q-06A(M)-5-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

Q-06A(M)-5-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Given the discretion under Act 846 and the presence of significant mitigating factors (marital relationship and serious marital problems), the case did not amount to the worst kind warranting death; therefore the death sentence was substituted with 33 years' imprisonment from date of arrest and 12 strokes of whipping.
3 Mar 2022

Yi Sha [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(M)-393-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-393-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of the evidence the Court held the prosecution had established trafficking: the presumption under s.37(d) was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, the appellant’s innocent carrier defence was disbelieved and wilful blindness applied; the large quantity supported inference of trafficking; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
3 Jan 2022

Mohamad Hafizi Bin Zainal Abidin [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

J-05(M)-353-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-353-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal held the trial judge committed a fatal omission by failing to specify at the close of the prosecution which presumption (direct possession/trafficking or statutory presumptions under s.37(d)/s.37(da) DDA) she relied upon; that omission affected the burden on the defence and amounted to a misdirection/non-direction rendering the conviction unsafe, warranting setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquittal on the first charge.
26 Oct 2021

ULIN ANAK BLUKOK

Citation

Q-05(M)-280-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

Q-05(M)-280-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held the trial judge applied the correct legal test under section 84, accepted the defence psychiatrist's conclusion that the appellant was of sound mind and aware his acts were wrong at the time of the offences, and found no error in convicting for murder; therefore the appeal was dismissed and the death sentences affirmed.