Citation: [2026] 4 MLRA 185
Court: Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Judges: Azman Abdullah, Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz, and Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid HHMR
Date of Judgment: 17 March 2026
1. Brief Background Facts
On 18 August 2020, a verbal dispute occurred at a workers’ hostel (rumah kongsi) in Johor Bahru between the deceased (Abu Taher) and a visitor brought by the appellant. The deceased was angry because the appellant had brought an “outsider” into the shared living area.
Later that evening, a physical struggle ensued between the appellant and the deceased outside the hostel. Witnesses (SP9 and another resident) heard a loud argument and saw the two men grabbing each other’s shirts for 15–20 minutes. The deceased eventually collapsed with a single stab wound to the left back abdomen and died from extensive bleeding. A hiltless knife belonging to the deceased was found near the body. The High Court convicted the appellant of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, sentencing him to 30 years’ imprisonment and 12 lashes. The appellant appealed, seeking a substituted conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. Legal Issues
- Private Defence: Whether the High Court failed to consider material evidence regarding the right of private defence under Sections 96, 97, 99, and 102 of the Penal Code.
- Intent for Murder: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the specific intent to kill required for a Section 302 conviction.
- Substituted Conviction: Whether the facts of the case supported a conviction under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code for causing death without the intent to murder.
3. Court’s Holding and Reasoning
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the murder conviction and substituting it with a conviction under Section 304(a).
A. Failure to Consider Material Evidence
The Court held that the High Court judge committed a material error of law and fact by failing to evaluate the testimony of the Investigating Officer (SP13). SP13 testified that, according to the recorded statement of a prosecution witness (SP9), the deceased was seen bringing and pointing a knife at the appellant. As the prosecution is bound by the evidence of its own witnesses, this evidence strongly supported the appellant’s claim of private defence and should have been considered.
B. Absence of Murderous Intent
The Court found there was reasonable doubt regarding the intent to murder. The fatal injury occurred during a sudden, spontaneous physical struggle, and there were no eyewitnesses to a deliberate act of stabbing with a clear intent to cause death. The nature of the injury—a single wound to the back during a scuffle—was more consistent with an accident or an act of self-preservation during a struggle rather than a premeditated murder.
C. Recognition of Private Defence
The Court ruled that the circumstances fell within the scope of the right of private defence. The evidence indicated a highly tense situation where the deceased was armed, creating a reasonable apprehension of danger to the appellant’s life. While the appellant’s defence at trial was somewhat inconsistent, the Court emphasized that a trial judge must weigh the entire evidence—including the appellant’s early police statement—to see if it raises a reasonable doubt.
4. Conclusion
The Court of Appeal concluded that the murder conviction was unsustainable. The conviction under Section 302 was substituted with a conviction under Section 304(a) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder . Consequently, the original sentence was set aside and replaced with 16 years’ imprisonment, effective from the date of arrest (30 August 2022).
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
Disclaimer: This case could be subject to further appeal.
