MUHAMMAD AZWAN BIN ZULKARNAI v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Applies the distinction between legal and medical insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code, confirming that the accused bears the burden of proving unsoundness of mind on a balance of probabilities and that conduct before, during and after the act may rebut it; the insanity defence failed and the murder conviction stood.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder under seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan (section 302 of the Penal Code). The prosecution against the appellant had begun in the High Court at Kota Bharu on a charge that, on 4 September 2017 in the Machang district of Kelantan, the appellant had murdered a named deceased. The appellant claimed trial, and eighteen prosecution witnesses gave evidence. At the close of the prosecution case the High Court found a prima facie case established and called on the appellant to enter a defence; the appellant elected to give evidence.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in rejecting the defence of unsoundness of mind under seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan (section 84 of the Penal Code — the act of a person of unsound mind). The court drew the distinction between legal and medical insanity, emphasising that legal insanity is a matter within the province of the court, and that the burden of proving unsoundness of mind, on a balance of probabilities, lies on the accused, who must show that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing that his act was wrong or contrary to law at the time of the offence. The court held that the issue of legal insanity must be decided without disregarding the medical evidence, and it examined the accused's conduct before, during and after the incident as bearing on his state of mind under seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 (section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950).

On the evidence, which the court found abundant, it inferred that the accused was aware of the nature and consequences of his act and was able to know that it was wrong and against the law, notwithstanding his drug dependency and psychosis. The gunshot injuries had caused death, the shots were fired with intent to cause death, and the accused's voluntary admission removed any question of absence of motive. The court unanimously found no merit in the appeal, holding that the defence of insanity was baseless and raised no reasonable doubt, and that no adverse inference under seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 arose. The appeal was dismissed.