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 v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Case Significance

Illustrates the dividing line between murder under section 302 and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, turning on whether the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

This Federal Court criminal appeal arose from the death of a student at a national defence university, a case that attracted wide public attention. Following the loss of a laptop, a group of fellow students subjected the deceased to sustained assaults, including burns inflicted with a steam iron, and he later died. The appellants had been convicted of murder under section 302 of the Penal Code ("seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan"), and one appellant of abetment under section 109 read with section 302. The appeal turned on the third limb of section 300(c) of the Penal Code, that is whether the bodily injury inflicted was "mencukupi pada lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian" (sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death), the element that distinguishes murder from the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a). The Court examined the medical and factual evidence and concluded that, while the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused the death, the evidence did not establish that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It therefore set aside the murder convictions, and held that the abetment conviction under section 109 read with section 302 could not be sustained. In their place the Court restored convictions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a), and for abetment of that offence, and maintained the High Court's sentence of "penjara 18 tahun dari tarikh tangkap" (18 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest). The decision is a detailed illustration of how the Malaysian courts draw the line between murder and culpable homicide through close analysis of the "ordinary course of nature" element, and of the appellate approach to reversing a Court of Appeal conviction on that ground. It also demonstrates that an appellate court may substitute a conviction for the lesser offence, and maintain the corresponding custodial term, where the mens rea and injury threshold for murder are not satisfied on the evidence.