Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Murder (s.302 penal code)

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2025

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] RAGUNATHAN A/L SELVAMANI

Citation

BA-45B-22-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-22-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved all essential ingredients of murder under s.302 read with s.34 because expert post‑mortem evidence established injuries sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death (s.300(c)) and eyewitness evidence and other corroboration established that the accused were present and participated in inflicting those injuries forming a common intention; defence alibis and explanations failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused were guilty and duly sentenced to lengthy imprisonment and strokes.
4 Jun 2025

[ ] RAMLAN BIN ABDUL RASHID

Citation

KA-45B-6-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45B-6-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of admissible evidence the court found the prosecution proved all elements of murder under s.302: the victim died while in accused's care; injuries consistent with prolonged abuse and sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death under s.300(c); accused was last seen with the victim and gave false explanations; accused's conduct in leading police to remains was admissible and indicated knowledge; defence explanations were rejected as afterthoughts; therefore accused convicted and, having considered Act 846 and aggravating factors (victim a small child, prolonged cruelty, co…
15 Jan 2025

Mahesh Gole Tamang (Nepal)

Citation

BA-45B-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case: the CCTV recordings relied upon were inadmissible because s.90A Evidence Act conditions and authentication were not met and the prosecution could not establish chain of custody; further the failure to call the material witness Prem and investigative lapses created critical gaps. On maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence a conviction could not be warranted and therefore no prima facie case existed; the accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.
13 Jan 2025

GOPINAATH A/L SELVARAJOO

Citation

P-05(LB)-456-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

P-05(LB)-456-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed the prosecution appeal and upheld the High Court discharge of R5 because the prosecution's failure to offer key witnesses for cross-examination when R5 was joined mid-trial, combined with material contradictions and inadequate investigation regarding the alleged second scene (Padang Openg) and the impossibility of the same killing occurring in two places, created reasonable doubt and amounted to denial of a fair trial; no error of law, fact or procedure justified appellate interference.
28 Oct 2024

SHAMSULKAHAR BIN SUAIB 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA 2. )

Citation

AB-44-15-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-44-15-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was premature and lacked a legal basis for interlocutory quashing: prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) FC and s.376 CPC is exclusive and not displaced by the court; the High Court's inherent or revisionary powers are limited and cannot be used to pre-empt a full trial where evidence (including expert testimony) has yet to be led; s.31 CJA revision did not apply as subordinate proceedings had been transferred; s.173(g) CPC does not permit acquittal prior to close of prosecution. Therefore the Notis Usul to strike out the s.302 charge and annul consent was dismissed.
3 Oct 2024

[ ] 1. ) Pavidthren A/l Danaraja 2. ) Mohamad Shahrul Nizam Bin Abdullah 3. ) Arivindren A/l James 4. ) Viknesh A/l Manivannan

Citation

BA-45B-10-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-10-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

After maximum evaluation the prosecution evidence was inadequate to establish a prima facie case against OKT1–OKT6: principal eyewitness (SP10) lacked certainty as to who inflicted fatal wounds, circumstantial chain was incomplete, no forensic linkage of weapons to accused, and material investigative witnesses were not called to clarify gaps. Section 149 was not shown to apply. Accordingly the accused were entitled to acquittal and discharge.
3 Oct 2024

THIYAGU A/L BALAKRISHNAN [ ]

Citation

05(M)-9-01/2023(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

M
Case number

05(M)-9-01/2023(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt: the prosecution witnesses gave reliable in-court identifications supported by consistent contemporaneous observations; the disputed video was properly excluded for lack of forensic authentication; the joint participation of appellants satisfied s.34 common intention; forensic pathology evidence was sufficient to show fatal multiple slash wounds to the head; thus convictions were upheld though the death sentences were commuted to fixed terms of imprisonment and corporal punishment in exercise of the Court's d…
3 Oct 2024

SAIMON A/L ANTHONY [ ]

Citation

05(M)-8-01/2023(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

M
Case number

05(M)-8-01/2023(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the prosecution's eyewitnesses (SP18, SP19, SP21) provided clear, consistent in-court identification supported by contemporaneous observation conditions and forensic pathology linking multiple slash wounds to death; absence of kawad cam reports and non-admission of an unauthenticated private video did not undermine the substantive identification evidence; common intention under s.34 was established by participants' conduct; the pathologist's evidence was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death; failure t…
3 Oct 2024

SUNDRAMOORTHY A/L SUKUMARE [ ]

Citation

05(M)-7-01/2023(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

M
Case number

05(M)-7-01/2023(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt: in‑court identifications by multiple independent witnesses were reliable and corroborative of each other; the medical evidence sufficiently established multiple slash wounds to the head as the cause of death; s.34 common intention was proven by participation and conduct; exclusion of the unverified video was proper; absence of kawad cam and the defence failure to give s.402A notice did not occasion miscarriage of justice. Consequently convictions were affirmed and the court, exercising sentencing discreti…
14 May 2024

[ ] Maidin Bin Ibnuhashim

Citation

S-05(SH)-475-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

S-05(SH)-475-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove murder under s.302 read with s.300(c) because there was insufficient evidence that the injuries would in the ordinary course of nature cause death and there was reasonable doubt as to intention to cause death; however the evidence proved intention to inflict bodily injury likely to cause death (2nd limb of s.299), supporting conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(a); accordingly the High Court's conviction under s.304(a) and the 18-year sentence were affirmed.