Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Self-defence

  • 2 Dec 2025

    1. ) TAI KUANG TEE 2. ) SIM MING HOOI 3. ) TAI KUANG LEE

    Citation
    KB-85-29-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    KB-85-29-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    After maximum evaluation the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of affray under Section 160 (physical fighting involving accused and others at the front of a motorcycle workshop in a public place that disturbed public peace); the defence of self-defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt; the charge and particulars were not defective; accused convicted and sentenced to fine RM1,000 or 2 months imprisonment.

  • 6 May 2025

    JEYABALAN A/L KUMARASAMY

    Citation
    PB-42S-1-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    PB-42S-1-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court found the Sessions Court's assessment of the prosecution evidence to be cogent and consistent, rejected the appellant's self-defence/provocation claim as unsubstantiated, and held that the appellant's deliberate retrieval and use of a parang causing multiple severe injuries established guilt under section 326; however, in exercise of discretion the court reduced the sentence from seven to six years and set aside the fine after considering mitigating factors (age, first offender, familial responsibilities).

  • 6 Sept 2024

    JEYABALAN A/L KUMARASAMY

    Citation
    PB-62-5-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    PB-62-5-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution proved both elements of Section 326: (1) the defendant intentionally used a parang to attack the victim and (2) the victim sustained grievous hurt as defined in Section 320, supported by consistent victim testimony, independent eyewitness account and medical evidence; the defence was limited to uncorroborated denials and self-defence assertions which failed to raise reasonable doubt. Therefore the defendant is guilty under Section 326 and a custodial sentence with fine is appropriate.

  • 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.

  • 5 Feb 2024

    [ ] UDI ANAK AMBO

    Citation
    Q-05(LB)-351-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    LB
    Case number
    Q-05(LB)-351-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the prosecution proved all elements of murder under paragraph 300(c) and that R1 and R2 acted in furtherance of a common intention; respondents failed on the balance of probabilities to establish private defence because the parang had been seized and the apprehension of danger had ceased, making the subsequent multiple stabbings excessive and unnecessary. The purported defect in the charge (wrong date) was remedied by an oral amendment in court without prejudice, so the charge was not fatal.

  • 4 Jan 2024

    AUNG ZAW WIN

    Citation
    JA-45B-6-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-45B-6-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    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

    AUNG ZAW WIN

    Citation
    JA-45B-6-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-45B-6-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    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

    Abd Jalil Bin Abd Latib [TIMBALAN ]

    Citation
    BA-42S-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42S-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    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.

  • 12 Jan 2023

    GOPELA KRISHNAN A/L ARUMUGAM [ ]

    Citation
    AA-43-13-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AA-43-13-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On review the High Court set aside the Coroner's Open Verdict and found on the balance of probabilities that the deceased's death resulted from misuse of police power and not from lawful self-defence; that material evidential deficiencies (absence of trajectory report, shell casings, GSR, DNA/fingerprints) and admitted departure from IGSO undermined the police account and warranted referral to prosecuting authorities.

  • 8 Sept 2022

    MOHAMAD ALIF SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN

    Citation
    WA-82-23-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-82-23-04/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court found prosecution proved a prima facie case; prosecution witnesses were credible; omission of 'voluntarily' was amendable; the assault and obstruction allegations arose from the same act so conviction was entered on Section 353 (assault on public servant) and acquittal entered on the overlapping Section 186 charge to avoid double jeopardy; accused convicted for breach of COVID-19 movement regulation; court imposed a non-custodial bond for the assault and a fine with imprisonment alternative for the regulatory breach in view of mitigating factors and first offender status.