Mohd Norol Latif Bin Abd Raof v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

a-05m-328-09-2020 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 5 April 2023 • A-05(M)-328-09/2020

Catchwords

Murder- deceased had been positively identified by SP5 and SP6- act of the Appellant as testified to by SP5, SP6 and the expert evidence of SP7 that caused the death of the deceased- direct evidence-credibility of SP5 and SP6 were suspect because they had failed to lodge a police report about the incident- time frame between the date of the incident on 15.1.2018 until the trial had raised the possibility of an afterthought on the part of SP5 and SP6- SP5 and SP6 had acted in such a manner that they had wanted to prevent the death of the deceased by searching for him after he had fled from the pursuit of the Appellant and thereafter securing transport in order to bring the deceased to a clinic- allegations against SP5 and SP6 were thus unfounded just because they had omitted to lodge a police report- discovery of the knife (P23) as a result of the information supplied by the Appellant while in custody which in turn indicated the Appellant’s knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of the said knife- The act of the Appellant in showing the police where the knife was also admissible under section 8(2) EA and also section 60(3) EA- motive for wanting to inflict such injuries upon the deceased over the latter’s accusation against him for the theft of the power bank- Appellant had remained in hiding in the jungle for a period of about 10 days before he was arrested on 27.1.2018 which he said was a fact that was relevant and material in proving that the Appellant hid himself for fear of detection and apprehension by the authorities-conduct- section 8(2) EA- grave and sudden provocation- interval of time between the acts of the alleged provocation at the house of the Appellant and the time when the Appellant went to the house of Mat Pen to inflict the fatal injuries on the deceased- Appellant went over to Mat Pens house armed with a knife showed active premeditation on the part of the Appellant in searching out the deceased while armed with a knife- no grave and sudden provocation-the Appellant hid the knife behind his back when approaching the deceased-indicating his clear intention to catch the deceased off-guard- psychiatric report stated that the Appellant was in a stable mental condition and was aware at the time of the incident of his actions and that he knew that his actions was wrong in law.

Practice Areas

Murder- deceased had been positively identified by SP5 and SP6- act of the Appellant as testified to by SP5, SP6 and the expert evidence of SP7 that caused the death of the deceased- direct evidence-credibility of SP5 and SP6 were suspect because they had failed to lodge a police report about the incident- time frame between the date of the incident on 15.1.2018 until the trial had raised the possibility of an afterthought on the part of SP5 and SP6- SP5 and SP6 had acted in such a manner that they had wanted to prevent the death of the deceased by searching for him after he had fled from the pursuit of the Appellant and thereafter securing transport in order to bring the deceased to a clinic- allegations against SP5 and SP6 were thus unfounded just because they had omitted to lodge a police report- discovery of the knife (P23) as a result of the information supplied by the Appellant while in custody which in turn indicated the Appellant’s knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of the said knife- The act of the Appellant in showing the police where the knife was also admissible under section 8(2) EA and also section 60(3) EA- motive for wanting to inflict such injuries upon the deceased over the latter’s accusation against him for the theft of the power bank- Appellant had remained in hiding in the jungle for a period of about 10 days before he was arrested on 27.1.2018 which he said was a fact that was relevant and material in proving that the Appellant hid himself for fear of detection and apprehension by the authorities-conduct- section 8(2) EA- grave and sudden provocation- interval of time between the acts of the alleged provocation at the house of the Appellant and the time when the Appellant went to the house of Mat Pen to inflict the fatal injuries on the deceased- Appellant went over to Mat Pens house armed with a knife showed active premeditation on the part of the Appellant in searching out the deceased while armed with a knife- no grave and sudden provocation-the Appellant hid the knife behind his back when approaching the deceased-indicating his clear intention to catch the deceased off-guard- psychiatric report stated that the Appellant was in a stable mental condition and was aware at the time of the incident of his actions and that he knew that his actions was wrong in law.

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Collin Lawrence Sequerah Coram Kamaludin bin Md. Said Delivered

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Mohd Norol Latif bin Abd Raof Appellant

Case Significance

Mohd Norol Latif Bin Abd Raof v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated April 5, 2023 (citation: a-05m-328-09-2020). The panel comprised Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim, Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Kamaludin bin Md. Said, with Kamaludin bin Md. Said delivering the judgment.

What was the outcome of Mohd Norol Latif Bin Abd Raof v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]?

Mohd Norol Latif Bin Abd Raof v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] is a Court of Appeal decision dated April 5, 2023. The case was heard by Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim. See the full judgment for details.