Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Use of weapon

  • 26 Feb 2026

    ONG SU PING SERENE

    Citation
    BA-42LB-2-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42LB-2-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court affirmed the trial court's acquittal because (1) the prosecution never sought amendment and had conducted the trial exclusively on a s.326 charge alleging use of pliers; (2) amending to s.325 after close of prosecution would materially alter the case and prejudice the defence; (3) the strict requirements for conviction on an uncharged offence under s.167 (and s.166) were not satisfied; and (4) section 316 CPC does not empower the appellate court to amend charges at the appellate stage — therefore no appellate intervention was warranted.

  • 30 Nov 2025

    ZAMRI BIN RANI

    Citation
    TE-82-1-08/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TE-82-1-08/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused personally caused the injuries with a parang (element of s324) because of credible alternative version that SD2 used the parang, inconsistencies and absence of forensic confirmation; therefore accused acquitted of s324 but convicted under s323 via s169(2) KTJ for voluntarily causing hurt; sentence fixed at RM2,000 fine or six months imprisonment in default.

  • 13 Nov 2025

    KOKULAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

    Citation
    NA-62-81-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    NA-62-81-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court accepted independent medical evidence that the complainant sustained injuries amounting to grievous hurt and found, on the totality of witness testimony and logical inference, that the accused intentionally caused those injuries with a parang; absence of the weapon did not negate the proven elements, thus conviction under Section 326 Penal Code followed.

  • 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.

  • 23 Jul 2025

    RAIZNAN SHAH BIN RUZMI [ ]

    Citation
    DA-42H-8-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-42H-8-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, finding the 8‑year sentence excessive given the early guilty plea (meriting a substantial discount), the relatively non‑lethal implement used, absence of injury and recovery of property; the 8‑year term was set aside and substituted with 5 years imprisonment while retaining the corporal punishment.

  • 30 Jun 2025

    SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

    Citation
    BA-62RS-16-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-62RS-16-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court accepted guilty plea and evidential exhibits established robbery with use/threat of a knife; applied mitigation for early plea but increased severity because accused faced multiple similar charges indicating recurrence; sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 years imprisonment for each count with 4 strokes each, to run from 15-05-2025, resulting in effective 3 years imprisonment and total 8 strokes.

  • 16 Aug 2024

    Muhamad Khairuldin Bin Shahrun

    Citation
    BA-42S-18-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42S-18-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court upheld conviction because eyewitness identification by victims was reliable on the facts (close proximity, duration, prior acquaintance, adapted night vision), inconsistencies over weapon form and failure to produce the parang were not fatal, defects in the identification parade did not render dock identification unsafe, the FIR only initiated investigation and language issues did not undermine in‑court testimony, and failure to call the out‑of‑country witness did not demonstrate deliberate concealment to invoke s114(g).

  • 25 Apr 2024

    MUHAMMAD AMMAR BIN ABDUL AZIZ

    Citation
    JA-62-36-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    JA-62-36-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Balancing aggravating factors (use of a knife, injury to victim, offence committed in public commercial premises, threat to life and property) against mitigating factors (youth, family hardship, remorse and guilty plea) the court held public interest and deterrence outweighed mitigation and imposed a custodial sentence of 8 years from date of arrest with 3 strokes; exhibit P12 ordered destroyed.

  • 19 Oct 2023

    IFI IZWAN BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

    Citation
    WA-42S-2-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42S-2-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Court held the prosecution proved all elements of robbery under Seksyen 395/397 read with Seksyen 391 beyond reasonable doubt by credible ocular identification corroborated by kawad cam, fingerprint matching to the accused on the victim's car, recovery of clothing and the weapon; defence alibis were inconsistent and no valid alibi notice was given; sentencing at 13 years imprisonment and 3 strokes was within principled range and not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences upheld.

  • 20 Aug 2023

    MUGILAN A/L MANI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

    Citation
    JB-42S-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-42S-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Given the violent nature of the offence (use of a knife, threats to kill, multiple injuries), absence of consent, and need for deterrence and public protection, the trial court did not err in principle and the 18-year imprisonment with 5 strokes is not manifestly excessive; mitigating factors of youth and drug influence were not sufficiently weighty to justify reduction; therefore appeal against sentence dismissed and original sentence upheld.