13 Nov 2025
Considering the offence under Section 326 and the mitigating factors—first offender status, age, personal and family circumstances and provocation—the court exercised leniency and imposed a custodial sentence of three years from date of conviction.
12 Aug 2025
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…
10 Mar 2025
Appellate court held appellant could not rely on Exception 4 (sudden fight) because the violence and pursuit were protracted and there was a cooling-off period and use of a vehicle was an unfair/ cruel advantage; however the provocation at the final stage (deceased striking the vehicle with a baseball bat) satisfied Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) so the proper conviction is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s304(a) Kanun Keseksaan; accordingly the conviction and 16-year sentence imposed by the High Court were affirmed.
14 Feb 2025
Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the four elements: (1) accused caused bodily hurt; (2) accused had intention or knowledge his acts would cause hurt; (3) injuries were caused by a blunt instrument (belt) capable of causing serious injury consistent with S.324; and (4) victim was the accused's lawful spouse at time of offence, engaging S.326A to double maximum penalty. Defence evidence (IDD21, IDD20) was either inadmissible or uncorroborated and failed to raise reasonable doubt. Consequently accused was convicted under Section 324 read with Section 326A and sentenced accordingly.
29 Jul 2024
On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence — including victim and eye‑witness testimony, contemporaneous police report and medical report corroborating recent injuries — the court found the prosecution proved all essential elements of sections 323/326A read with section 34 beyond reasonable doubt; the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt and admissions by accused reinforced guilt, warranting conviction and custodial sentence of eight months.
25 Jul 2024
High Court had found a prima facie case; trial court must therefore assess defence only on whether it raises reasonable doubt. Accused's pre‑incident conduct demonstrated he 'sought' provocation so proviso (a) to Exception 1 of s.300 applies and provocation defence fails; prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt for offence under s.323 read with s.326A; accused convicted and sentenced accordingly.
30 Apr 2024
Appellant failed to prove legal insanity on a balance of probabilities; trial judge and the Court of Appeal were entitled to prefer the evidence of the treating/rebuttal psychiatrist (SP15) who concluded appellant was legally sane at the time; circumstantial evidence including DNA and the nature and number of stab wounds established intention under s.300 Penal Code; conviction for murder was upheld and the death sentence was commuted to 30 years imprisonment from 10 March 2018 plus 12 strokes.
4 Jan 2024
The court exercised the discretion granted by Act 846 to impose an alternative to death: the accused was convicted of murder under s.302 but the offence was not premeditated or exceptionally aggravated; mitigating factors (remorse, no prior convictions, relationship with deceased, spontaneous nature of assault) outweighed aggravation; therefore a custodial sentence of 30 years and 12 strokes was appropriate instead of the death penalty.
4 Jan 2024
Under the amended s.302 (Act 846) the court exercised its discretion to impose 30 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes because the killing was spontaneous during a fight, not premeditated or aggravated murder, the accused showed remorse and mitigating factors outweighed aggravating features, so death was not warranted.
29 May 2023
The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions because the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the charged offences: material inconsistency and lack of proof as to the date/time, absence of specific medical evidence that the injuries amounted to 'grievous hurt' as defined in section 320 Penal Code, and failure to establish conclusively which weapon was used and its linkage to the appellant. Those evidential deficiencies defeated any safe prima facie case and mandated acquittal.