Pendakwa Raya v Koyo (Indonesia)

Case Significance

Illustrates the operation of the defence of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Penal Code, which, if established by the accused on the balance of probabilities, reduces murder under section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(b).

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a charge of murder under seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan (section 302 of the Penal Code) against the accused, an Indonesian national, in respect of the death of the deceased outside a factory in Shah Alam on 18 April 2021. The accused pleaded not guilty and sought to raise the defence of grave and sudden provocation. The prosecution called fifteen witnesses, including a forensic pathologist, a paramedic, the investigating officer, a DNA analyst and eyewitnesses, to prove its case.

At the close of the prosecution case the court, on a maximum evaluation of the evidence, found that all the ingredients of murder had been proved and that a prima facie case had been made out, and it called on the accused to enter his defence, the burden of establishing provocation lying on him. On the totality of the evidence the court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the fatal injuries the accused inflicted on the deceased were the result of grave and sudden provocation within Exception 1 to section 300 of the Penal Code. It accepted that the accused had acted while deprived of self-control as a result of the deceased's continuous and excessive provocation, and drew significance from the accused's conduct after the incident — he did not flee but remained at the scene in shock, in contrast to cases where flight was treated as relevant conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950.

The court accordingly reduced the offence, convicting the accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(b) of the Penal Code and sentencing him to nine years' imprisonment from the date of arrest. Aggrieved, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judgment illustrates how the defence of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 operates to reduce murder to culpable homicide.