Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accomplice evidence

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2025

JUBANG ANAK USIN [ ]

Citation

Q-05(SH)-600-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

Q-05(SH)-600-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held prosecution proved ingredients of s26A ATIPSOM by evidence including PW5 and corroboration from appellant's cautioned statement admissible under s18A SOSMA; PW5, though an accomplice, was credible and sufficiently corroborated; non-production of Hadi did not create a gap warranting adverse inference; alibi was an afterthought and not sufficient to raise reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed and conviction and six-year sentence affirmed; stay granted on stated bail terms.
26 Mar 2025

MOHD FAIZOL BIN MAT AZMIN

Citation

TD-82D-5-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TD-82D-5-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.30(3) Poisons Act because material inconsistencies existed regarding where the tablet was found (wallet vs waist bag), the chemical report did not quantify active substance versus tablet weight creating ambiguity as to the charged 0.14g, and late/amending of the charge prejudiced the defence; therefore, after maximum evaluation the evidence did not warrant calling the accused to enter his defence and the accused was acquitted under s.173(h) CPC.
23 Jul 2024

MUHAMAD DANIAL FIRDAUS BIN AZMIR [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-422-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-422-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held eyewitness evidence (SP24, SP25, SP26), corroborated by forensic pathology (SP6), established prima facie that appellants assaulted the victim with common intention; trial judge erred in reducing s.302 charges to s.304(a); s.300(c) elements satisfied for OKT1–OKT5 and abetment by OKT6 proven under s.107/109; therefore convictions for murder under s.302 reinstated for OKT1–OKT6 and convictions under s.330 for the other appellants upheld with adjusted sentences.
23 Jul 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MUHAMMAD AKMAL ZUHAIRI BIN AZMAL 2. ) MUHAMMAD AZAMUDDIN BIN MAD SOFI 3. ) MUHAMMAD NAJIB BIN MOHD RAZI 4. ) MUHAMMAD AFIF NAJMUDIN BIN AZAHAT 5. ) MOHAMAD SHOBIRIN BIN SABRI

Citation

W-05-442-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-442-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court accepted prosecution eyewitness evidence and pathologist report that extensive burn injuries caused death; inferred common intention and participation from presence, conduct and repeated application of a steam iron; held that elements of s.300(c) and s.302 were met for OKT1–5 and that OKT6 abetted by instigation and aiding under s.107/109; convictions under s.330 against specified appellants were upheld and s.330 sentences increased to 4 years; prosecution appeal to reinstate s.302 for OKT1–6 was allowed and death sentence imposed on those six.
23 Jul 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] ABDOUL HAKEEM BIN MOHD ALI

Citation

W-05-456-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-456-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court found prosecution evidence (chiefly SP24, SP25, SP6 and corroborating witnesses) credible and sufficient to establish prima facie case, common intention and that injuries inflicted were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death; trial judge erred in downgrading murder charge to culpable homicide and that error was corrected by reinstating s.302 charges for accused 1–6 and imposing capital punishment; accused 6 was liable for abetment; convictions under s.330 for other accused were upheld and sentences adjusted.
2 Apr 2024

1. ) MOHD SHARIFUDDIN BIN ZAKARIA 2. ) MOHD FAIZROL BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

NF-82D-3-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NF-82D-3-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the primary element of possession—control and knowledge—because the storeroom was accessible to others, items were contained and not openly attributable to accused, and the prosecution did not call the co-accused who had confessed; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.
21 Mar 2024

1. ) MOHD HAKIM BIN ABDUL AZIZ 2. ) MUHAMMAD FARID BIN ISMAIL

Citation

TA-82D-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-82D-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities at the close of defence the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(d) DDA 1952; his innocent‑carrier explanation was unreasonable on the facts and DW2's evidence did not sufficiently exculpate him; therefore prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed.
14 Mar 2024

Kunaseegaran A/l Ragavanaidu [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-211-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-211-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge’s findings that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that all appellants shared a common intention to kill under section 34 read with section 302; SP54’s accomplice testimony was satisfactorily corroborated by forensic, DNA and circumstantial evidence, and the convictions and death sentences were affirmed.
5 Mar 2024

KAVIN MUKILAN A/L CHANDRASEKARAN [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-27-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-27-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the accomplice testimony of SP4 was safely admissible because it was corroborated by independent and circumstantial evidence (vehicle rental records, dashcam/GPS data, phone call records, witness identifications and forensic pathology). The ransom calls and related phone evidence, together with the pathology finding of suffocation and the last-seen circumstances, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, acting with common intention under s34 Penal Code, kidnapped the deceased for ransom and caused her death (murder under s302 Penal Code and kidnapping under…
5 Mar 2024

MALARVILI A/P ARUMUGAM [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-26-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-26-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed convictions for kidnapping and murder because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, acting with common intention, kidnapped the deceased for ransom and caused her death by suffocation; the accomplice witness (SP4) was credible and his testimony was independently corroborated by vehicle rental records, dashcam and GPS evidence, phone call transcripts and handset sale, and the cumulative circumstantial evidence (including last-seen together) established causation and guilt.