Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Murder (section 302 penal code)

Legal area

Court

5 Jan 2026

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MUH RUDI BIN ISMAIL

Citation

CB-45B-3-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45B-3-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis of third‑party involvement: there was no eyewitness to the killing, the accused's DNA was absent from the principal weapon while multiple unknown male DNA profiles were present on exhibits, the s.27 material did not establish exclusive discovery by the accused, and the 'last seen together' theory was unsupported by corroborative facts sufficient to complete the chain of inference. Accordingly the accused was acquitted.
13 Oct 2025

CHAI KONG WEE @ CHIA KONG WEE

Citation

BA-45B-18-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-18-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the Abolition of Death Penalty Act 2023 and relevant authorities the court exercised sentencing discretion: the accused was legally sane and responsible, his early guilty plea and cooperation mitigated culpability but did not outweigh the serious aggravating factors (violent killing of a serving police officer and extensive prior offending); public interest and need for specific deterrence required a severe non-capital sentence. Therefore the appropriate punishment was 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes, to commence after completion of the accused's existing prison terms under rel…
26 Aug 2024

Mohammad Firdaus Bin Ismail [ ]

Citation

P-05(M)-206-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

P-05(M)-206-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Under the amended section 302 (Akta 846) the Court exercised statutory discretion: prosecution failed to demonstrate that this murder was of the exceptionally depraved character required to justify death; balancing aggravating and mitigating factors the Court substituted the mandatory death sentence with the maximum alternative of 40 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes, with conviction affirmed.
25 Jun 2024

Gunasegaran A/l Munisamy [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-353-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-353-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found no error in the trial judge's factual and legal findings that a prima facie case was established, that circumstantial evidence together with the accused's signed pre-trial admission proved the elements of murder under s300(c) and s302 beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; however, in exercise of sentencing discretion under the post-mandatory-death statutory regime the death sentence was not warranted and was substituted with 35 years imprisonment backdated to 05.02.2018 and 15 strokes.
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.
29 Apr 2024

Mohd Azhud Bin Ibrahim [ ]

Citation

A-05(M)-65-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

A-05(M)-65-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, when considered collectively, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone inflicted the fatal injuries; the defences of self-defence and insanity failed on the evidence and expert reports; accordingly the conviction was affirmed and, pursuant to the abolition of the mandatory death penalty, the death sentence was replaced with 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the rotan.
6 Feb 2024

[ ] Odang

Citation

Q-05-487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

Q-05-487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal found the prosecution proved that the accused inflicted an initial stab at the motorcycle area and then pursued the fleeing victim for about 400 metres and inflicted further fatal injury, thereby exceeding any right of private defence and acting with premeditation/undue advantage; Exception 4 (sudden fight) and Exception 2 did not apply. The High Court's conviction under Section 304(a) was set aside and the accused was convicted of murder under Section 302 and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the rotan.
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.
18 Oct 2022

MOHAMAD ROSLI BIN NAQUR GANI [ ]

Citation

C-05(M)-524-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

C-05(M)-524-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's conviction for murder under section 302 was unsafe because it failed to properly consider the appellant's primary defence of grave and sudden provocation; the Court of Appeal held the imprecise time in the charge was not fatal or misleading, found the circumstantial and forensic evidence linked the appellant to the death and supported culpable homicide but remitted culpability to section 304(1) (first limb) due to misapplication in not evaluating provocation, and substituted conviction accordingly with a 22-year imprisonment sentence from date of arrest.
13 Sept 2022

SETHUPATHI A/L PATHI [ ]

Citation

M-05(M)-384-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

M-05(M)-384-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Convictions were unsafe because material contradictions in prosecution evidence, especially on identification, and lack of proof of common intention under s.34 meant no reliable prima facie case existed to require the appellants to enter defence; trial judge erred in law and fact in calling for defence and in evaluating evidence, therefore convictions set aside and appellants acquitted.