Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Robbery

  • 6 Feb 2026

    ABD KHALID BIN HAMID

    Citation
    RA-62RS-2-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    RA-62RS-2-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court accepted guilty pleas and mitigation but found aggravating factors (targeting of elderly victims, deceptive modus operandi, separate incidents in time and place and different victims) required deterrent punishment; applied one-transaction/totality principles and discretion to order consecutive sentences; sentenced defendant to 6 years imprisonment for each robbery count, first term to run from date of arrest and second to run consecutively after completion of first; exhibits handed to prosecution for disposal or return to owners.

  • 22 Oct 2025

    ABUL SATHALI HABIB MOHAMED

    Citation
    JA-62RS-50-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    JA-62RS-50-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the admitted facts, including use of a 26 cm knife to threaten the victim and theft of the victim's car, the guilty plea reduced but did not outweigh the aggravating factor of a dangerous weapon and the need for deterrence; a sentence of five years' imprisonment from date of arrest and two strokes of the rotan is appropriate and lawful.

  • 29 Sept 2025

    KRISHNAN A/L CHANDRASAGARAN

    Citation
    WA-62RS-139-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62RS-139-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution established a prima facie case and proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt: victim gave positive dock identification at close range corroborated by CCTV; stolen phone was recovered from accused's waist-bag and linked through police evidence and continuity of exhibits; discrepancies and procedural omissions raised by defence did not break the chain nor create reasonable doubt; accused's alibi and denials were uncorroborated and amounted to bare denial, therefore conviction under s.392 Kanun Keseksaan was warranted.

  • 18 Sept 2025

    1. ) GANABATHI A/L KRISHNAN 2. ) JAYAGANTHAN A/L MORUGAN

    Citation
    AC-62RS-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62RS-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Mahkamah menimbang pengakuan salah dan faktor peribadi tertuduh sebagai alasan mitigasi tetapi mengutamakan kepentingan awam dan sifat serius kes rompakan berkumpulan yang melibatkan keganasan; oleh itu mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman yang memberi pengajaran iaitu tujuh tahun penjara dan dua sebatan bagi setiap pertuduhan.

  • 8 Aug 2025

    ABDUL MU'IZZ BIN MOHAMAD ZIN

    Citation
    CA-62RS-6-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    CA-62RS-6-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found the prosecution proved all essential elements of robbery under section 394 — the vehicle was taken from the victim's possession without consent by use of violence, supported by witness and medical evidence; the defence claim of taking the vehicle as security for a debt did not negate dishonest intention and is not a lawful defence to robbery; accordingly the accused was convicted and sentenced to a custodial and deterrent term (10 years imprisonment and 3 strokes).

  • 29 Jul 2025

    TUAN MUHAMMAD SHAHRUL AZLAN BIN TUAN ABDUL RAHMAN

    Citation
    TD-62RS-2-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    TD-62RS-2-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the seriousness of attempting robbery with a dangerous weapon causing injuries and the need for public deterrence, the court accepted mitigation (early guilty plea and personal circumstances) but found public interest and gravity outweigh mitigation and sentenced the defendant to 7 years' imprisonment from date of arrest and two strokes of whipping, a sentence within established precedent for s.394 offences.

  • 14 Jul 2025

    DARSHN RAJ A/L RAJAGOPAL

    Citation
    WA-42H-10-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42H-10-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appeal was allowed in part and the sentence reduced because the Sessions Court failed to give anxious consideration to mitigating factors and to the fact the appellant was the only person charged (distinguishing s395 from s392), resulting in a disproportionate sentence; imprisonment reduced from five to three years, whipping stayed, sentence to run from 23.8.2024.

  • 9 Jul 2025

    SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

    Citation
    BA-62RS-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-62RS-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court convicted the accused of robbery with a deadly weapon; although an early guilty plea merited mitigation, the pattern of multiple robberies in the same month and public interest outweighed full mitigation; statutory constraint under s.292(1) KTJ required the sentence to commence after completion of the prior sentence, hence the court imposed 2 years' imprisonment and 3 strokes to commence after completion of BA-62RS-17-05/2025.

  • 9 Jul 2025

    SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

    Citation
    BA-62RS-29-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-62RS-29-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Balancing public interest against accused's mitigation, the court found the offence (robbery with a knife in a public pharmacy) sufficiently serious to require a deterrent sentence; the one transaction rule did not apply because offences occurred on separate occasions, therefore the sentence of 3 years imprisonment and one stroke of whipping was imposed to commence upon conclusion of the accused's existing sentence for case no. BA-62RS-28-05/2025.

  • 9 Jul 2025

    SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

    Citation
    BA-62RS-28-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-62RS-28-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court found the offence serious (daytime robbery in a public pharmacy with a parang) warranting significant punishment; guilty plea and remorse were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest. One transaction rule did not apply as offences occurred on different dates/occasions; applying Sections 282 and 292 CPC and totality principle the court ordered imprisonment of 3 years and 1 stroke of whipping, to commence upon conclusion of the accused's sentence in case no. BA-62RS-30-05/2025.