Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Grievous hurt

  • 31 Mar 2026

    PANIRSELVAM A/L SENASAMY

    Citation
    BL-45B-8-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-45B-8-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence (eyewitnesses SP5 and SP15, CCTV, forensic pathology and medical reports) the court found all elements of section 300(c)/302 and section 326 proven beyond reasonable doubt; accused convicted on both counts and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment and 12 strokes for murder (BL-45B-8-10/2023) and 15 years imprisonment for grievous hurt (BL-45-4-12/2023), to run concurrently.

  • 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.

  • 25 Feb 2026

    TAUFIK HIDAYAH BIN ABDULLAH

    Citation
    N-05(SH)-321-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    N-05(SH)-321-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court held there was no miscarriage of justice: trial judge properly assessed credibility and proximity of SP3, supported by scene evidence and forensics; common intention under s.34 established; failure to call Pathma did not prejudice defence sufficiently to warrant reversal; spousal evidence (SP18) admissible as given and corroborative; convictions under s.302 and s.326 and imposed sentences were safe and upheld.

  • 12 Jan 2026

    CHEAH LYE AUN

    Citation
    PB-83JS-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    PB-83JS-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendant used criminal force to outrage the victim's modesty (s354) and voluntarily caused grievous hurt (s325) because the complainant's testimony was consistent, credible and corroborated by SP2 and medical evidence (SP6) establishing compression fracture of L2 and posterior 10th rib fracture; the defendant's bare denial and uncorroborated defence failed to raise reasonable doubt and intent/knowledge was properly inferred from the nature and degree of force used.

  • 5 Dec 2025

    HAFIZUL BIN HAWARI

    Citation
    BK-62-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BK-62-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the gravity of the offences and the public interest in deterrence, the court accepted the guilty plea as a mitigating factor but found it insufficient to outweigh the seriousness; imposed five years imprisonment for s.307 and seven years for s.326 to run concurrently with each other but directed that these sentences be separate from, and commence after, unrelated sentences from Kota Bharu (different transactions), in accordance with its discretion under s.282 Criminal Procedure Code.

  • 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.

  • 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)

    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.

  • 4 Nov 2025

    ROSMAINI BIN ABDUL RAOF

    Citation
    JA-42H-13-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-42H-13-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The trial judge did not err: SP1's in‑court demeanour and testimony were credible; the belated statutory declaration and police report were afterthoughts and contested, did not create reasonably possible alternative hypotheses, and did not break the complete circumstantial chain pointing to the accused; refusal to recall SP1 was a proper exercise of discretion under Section 425 CPC; SP1's testimony was direct evidence and not inadmissible hearsay; alleged investigative defects were immaterial; the 10‑year sentence (with 14 months remand served) was within the appropriate range and not manifes…

  • 4 Jul 2025

    MOHD SAFWAN BIN ABDUL RAHIM

    Citation
    WA-62-89-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62-89-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court affirmed the conviction and the sentence of one year imprisonment from date of arrest and one stroke of cane because, while the offence was serious, mitigating factors — unreserved guilty plea, first offender status, remorse, absence of evidence of public alarm — and the appropriateness of restorative justice rendered the sentence proportionate and sufficient to meet public interest and deterrence.

  • 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).