Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intoxication defence

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2025

TEVAGAR A/L THURAISINGAM

Citation

B-05(SH)-585-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-585-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court accepted SP11 as a credible eyewitness and found her evidence, read with admissions and evidence of Mohanraj and forensic findings, sufficiently established appellant's role; the failure to call the named witnesses was not material to create reasonable doubt; self-induced intoxication did not negate intent. Therefore conviction and sentence were lawful and must be upheld.
12 Aug 2025

JOHANIZAM BIN JOHARI

Citation

KA-45B-1-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45B-1-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of evidence (forensic pathology confirming fatal blunt force head trauma, absence of defensive injuries, witness evidence placing accused leaving scene with the weapon, accused's conduct in concealing weapon), the court inferred the accused intentionally caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death under s.300(c); defences (private defence, sudden fight/provocation, intoxication) failed on balance; prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, given aggravating factors and discretionary sentencing regime under Act 846, the offence warranted the deat…
25 Mar 2024

BUVENTHIRAN A/L PARAMASIVAM

Citation

AB-42JSKS-5-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42JSKS-5-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of credible child witnesses whose competence and testimony were satisfactory under the 2017 Act; the intoxication defence failed because intoxication was self-induced, no medical opinion established incapacity to know the nature/wrongness of acts, and the appellant retained cognitive faculties; there was no basis to draw adverse inference; the two offences formed one transaction and concurrent sentences and the imposed terms were appropriate.
20 Nov 2023

Ja'afar Bin Halid [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

P-05(SH)-452-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

P-05(SH)-452-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the Court of Appeal found appellant was legally insane at the time of the shootings due to recurrent stimulant-induced psychosis supported by medical and witness evidence; the trial judge misappreciated and excluded material evidence and erred in finding intent and focused attack, therefore convictions and sentences were quashed and appellant was discharged under section 347 CPC and ordered to be detained in a psychiatric hospital under section 348 CPC.
20 Nov 2023

Ja'afar Bin Halid [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

P-05(M)-443-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

P-05(M)-443-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the Court of Appeal found the appellant was legally insane under s.84 Penal Code at the time of the shootings (supported by prior psychiatric records D147 and D151A, witness observations of hallucination/chanting and erratic aggressive conduct, and expert evidence on stimulant‑induced psychosis), therefore the convictions for murder and attempted murder could not stand; applying CPC s.347 the appellant was acquitted and discharged and, under CPC s.348, ordered to be sent to a mental hospital with a report to the Yang di‑Pertuan Agong for approval of confinement.
6 Aug 2023

MICHAEL LIEW

Citation

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was subject to a valid police supervision order and breached the curfew by being outside his registered residence between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am; the offence is one of strict liability so self‑induced intoxication is not a defence under s85 Penal Code and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 was therefore justified and the appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction.
25 Aug 2022

Luqman Hadi Bin Mustapa [ ]

Citation

M-05(M)-357-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

M-05(M)-357-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellant failed to prove legal insanity or intoxication‑induced insanity on the balance of probabilities; the untested psychiatric report was insufficient, appellant elected silence and produced no rebuttal, and his conduct, statements and injuries inflicted demonstrated awareness and intent; therefore prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions and sentences were upheld.
20 May 2022

Public Prosecutor Preevan a/l Chanderan

Citation

BH-83JS-20-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH-83JS-20-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the victim's uncontradicted evidence corroborated by an eyewitness (PW1) that the accused intentionally touched the victim's back without consent; that touching constituted criminal force and, in the circumstances, would outrage modesty of a reasonable person; intoxication defence was not established; Whatsapp screenshots were inadmissible secondary evidence; therefore prosecution proved a prima facie case and, after full trial, the accused was guilty under s.354 and sentenced accordingly.