S v Malik (285/1985) [1987] ZASCA 35 (31 March 1987)

S v Malik (285/1985) [1987] ZASCA 35 (31 March 1987)

The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by overlooking strong corroboration of the appellant's version in the prosecution's evidence regarding the scene. The probabilities indicated that the deceased was the aggressor and that the appellant fired the shot unintentionally while ducking away. There was no proof of intention to murder, but the appellant acted negligently in handling the firearm. His negligence was not of a serious nature, materially reducing his moral blameworthiness. The conviction for murder was set aside and replaced with culpable homicide, and the sentence was adjusted accordingly.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 35
Parties
Appellant: Sharfudeen Pakhi Malik; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1987
Case Number
285/1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; conviction and sentence for murder set aside and replaced with culpable homicide and a fine or suspended imprisonment.
Judges
Rabie, Vivier, Steyn
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Intention, Negligence, Self Defence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Intention Negligence Self Defence Credibility of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharfudeen Pakhi Malik

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased or acted negligently.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant's version and finding him guilty of murder with extenuating circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to culpable homicide rather than murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by overlooking strong corroboration of the appellant's version in the prosecution's evidence regarding the scene. The probabilities indicated that the deceased was the aggressor and that the appellant fired the shot unintentionally while ducking away. There was no proof of intention to murder, but the appellant acted negligently in handling the firearm. His negligence was not of a serious nature, materially reducing his moral blameworthiness. The conviction for murder was set aside and replaced with culpable homicide, and the sentence was adjusted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; conviction and sentence for murder set aside and replaced with culpable homicide and a fine or suspended imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds in part.
  • The conviction of murder and the sentence of 9 years' imprisonment are set aside.