1. ) XXXX 2. ) Samirah Bin Muzaffar 3. ) Haziq Aiman v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]
53 cases cited
(2 SG, 51 foreign)
Catchwords
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR … APPELLANT AND 1. SAMIRAH BINTI MUZAFFAR 2. HAZIQ AIMAN BIN NIZAM MYDIN 3. NAUFAL AALIF BIN NIZAM MYDIN … RESPONDENTS The respondents, together with another person still at large, were jointly charged with an offence of murder punishable under s.302 of the Penal Code. The Appeal No. B-05(LB)-282-06/2022 (“Appeal 282”) concerns the prosecution’s appeal against the decision of the High Court in acquitting and discharging all three respondents on grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove the 3rd element of the offence of murder, i.e. whether the respondents had caused the injuries which resulted in the deceased’s death. Whilst, Appeal No. B-05-293-07/2022 (“Appeal 293”) is confined to the defence’s appeal against certain findings made by the High Court in relation to the 2nd element of murder as to whether the deceased’s death was caused by the injuries inflicted on him. whether the respondents had caused the injury which resulted in the deceased’s death - the prosecution had failed to establish the time of death of the deceased to be between 11.00pm on 13th June 2018 and 4.00am on 14th June 2018, as stated in the charge. Last seen together theory - the last seen together theory does not help the prosecution at all, and the learned trial judge was quite correct to reject its application to the present case. Opportunity to commit the offence - the mere presence of opportunity cannot be the basis to convict the respondents in the absence of any cogent evidence that establishes the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Conduct and motive - the prosecution was unable to produce a coherent case theory as to how the death happened, what the motives are, and a logical/reasonable theory as to how the respondents were involved in the death of the deceased. Incendiary fire, blast and staged crime scene - the learned trial judge’s conclusion that the fire was deliberately started is erroneous as it is not supported by cogent evidence.
Judges (3)
Counsel (11)
Jabatan Peguam Negara Firm Shafee & Co. Firm Alaistair Norman Counsel Respondent Ls Leonard Counsel Respondent Mohd Amril Johari Counsel Appellant Muhammad Rahmat Abu Bakar Counsel Respondent Nur Sabrina Zubairi Counsel Appellant Rahmat Hazlan Counsel Respondent Tan Sri Dato' Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah Counsel Respondent Tengku Intan Suraya Tengku Ismail Counsel Appellant Yusaini Amer Abd Karim Counsel Appellant
Statutes Cited
Courts of Judicature Act
s 60(1)
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Penal Code (Cap 574)
Cases Cited (53)
SLR (2)
[1998] 3 SLR(R) 421 [2011] 3 SLR 167
UK (2)
[1947] 1 All ER 582 [1955] AC 370
MY (49)
[1941] MLJ 1 [1960] MLJ 96 [1962] MLJ 307 [1969] 2 MLJ 89 [1972] 1 MLJ 122 [1980] 1 MLJ 160 [1982] 2 MLJ 237 [1983] 2 CLJ 10 [1983] 2 MLJ 232 [1983] CLJ 101 [1985] 1 MLJ 38 [1987] 2 MLJ 336 [1995] 3 MLJ 395 [1996] 2 MLJ 557 [1996] 3 CLJ 187 [1996] 4 CLJ 545 [1998] 6 CLJ 609 [2002] 3 CLJ 457 [2004] 3 CLJ 737 [2005] 1 CLJ 389 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2005] 1 MLJ 261 [2005] 4 MLJ 37 [2005] 5 MLJ 409 [2006] 1 CLJ 391 [2006] 1 CLJ 457 [2006] 2 MLJ 82 [2006] 3 MLJ 213 [2006] 5 CLJ 49 [2007] 2 MLJ 505 [2008] 3 MLJ 290 [2009] 2 CLJ 800 [2009] 2 MLJ 613 [2011] 1 CLJ 805 [2012] 1 MLJ 1049 [2012] 2 CLJ 1046 [2012] 4 MLJ 149 [2013] 2 CLJ 717 [2013] 2 MLJ 605 [2014] 6 CLJ 850 [2014] 7 CLJ 897 [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [2015] 7 CLJ 849 [2016] 4 CLJ 227 [2017] 3 MLJ 141 [2017] 7 CLJ 703 [2021] 10 CLJ 700 [2022] 1 CLJ 491 [2023] 2 MLJ 186
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (b-05-293-07-2022)