Pendakwa Raya v CHE MUHAMMAD IDHAM FAQIMIE BIN CHE ROSDI

ta-42lb-3-09-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 11 February 2026 • TA-42LB-3-09/2024 • 20 min read
14 cases cited (0 SG, 14 foreign)

Outcome

Rayuan Perayu dengan itu ditolak. Keputusan HMS yang melepaskan dan membebaskan Responden daripada kedua- dua pertuduhan adalah dengan ini dikekalkan.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ta-42lb-3-09-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Undang-Undang Jenayah – Kesalahan – Sebab-akibat – Kematian berlaku lebih 16 bulan selepas serangan – Sama ada rantai sebab-akibat langsung terbukti – Sama ada komplikasi selepas serangan (meningitis) memutuskan rantai sebab-akibat – Seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan Undang-Undang Jenayah – Kesalahan – Menyebabkan cedera parah – Senjata berbahaya – Serangan dengan parang – Kecederaan serius yang memerlukan rawatan hospital – Sama ada semua elemen kesalahan dibuktikan – Seksyen 326 Kanun Keseksaan Undang-Undang Jenayah – Niat Bersama – Liabiliti atas perbuatan orang lain – Tertuduh hadir di tempat kejadian dengan senjata – Sama ada kehadiran semata-mata dan persetujuan pasif mencukupi – Keperluan persetujuan terlebih dahulu atau pertemuan minda – Sama ada niat bersama terbukti – Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan Prosedur Jenayah – Perbicaraan – Pembebasan – Rayuan oleh Pendakwa Raya terhadap pembebasan – Peranan mahkamah rayuan – Bila mahkamah rayuan akan campur tangan – Prinsip dalam Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim lwn PP Prosedur Jenayah – Perbicaraan – Beban pembuktian – Kes prima facie – Perbezaan antara dapatan kes prima facie pada akhir kes pendakwaan dan dapatan bersalah melampaui keraguan munasabah pada akhir kes pembelaan – Seksyen 180 & 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah Prosedur Jenayah – Perbicaraan – Pembelaan – Alibi – Sama ada sekadar penafian kosong – Kredibiliti saksi alibi yang merupakan saudara-mara – Sama ada keterangan saksi berkepentingan mesti ditolak secara automatik – Keperluan penelitian teliti – Prinsip dalam Balasingham lwn PP Prosedur Jenayah – Perbicaraan – Penilaian keterangan – Pengecaman – Pengecaman di kandang saksi – Kegagalan menamakan tertuduh dalam laporan polis walaupun dakwaan kenal sebelum ini – Sama ada pengecaman lemah dan tidak selamat untuk diterima pakai – Manfaat keraguan kepada tertuduh – Prinsip dalam Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar lwn PP Prosedur Jenayah – Perbicaraan – Kes pembelaan – Aplikasi prinsip dalam Mat lwn PP – Hakim perbicaraan tidak positif mempercayai pembelaan tetapi mendapati ia menimbulkan keraguan munasabah – Sama ada pembebasan wajar di bawah senario (e) Mat lwn PP

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (5)

Azrul Hasyimi & Co Firm Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu Firm Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad Counsel Respondent Muhammad Akmal bin Jazlee Counsel Prosecution Noradila Binti Ab Latif Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Appellant Che Muhammad Idham Faqimie bin Che Rosdi Respondent

Case Significance

Confirms that common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code requires a prior meeting of minds and is not established by mere presence with a weapon or passive assent, and restates the limited basis on which an appellate court will disturb an acquittal.

This High Court decision, on the Public Prosecutor's appeal against an acquittal, concerns causation over a long interval, common intention, and the limited role of an appellate court in reviewing an acquittal. The respondent had been charged, together with two others still at large, with offences under section 304(a) and section 326 of the Penal Code, each read with section 34, arising from a parang attack. The Sessions Court, having found a prima facie case and called for the defence, acquitted the respondent at the close of the trial on the ground that the defence had raised a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution appealed. The Court addressed several issues. On causation, the deceased had died more than sixteen months after the attack, and the question was whether the chain of causation remained unbroken where death followed from a complication, meningitis, associated with the head injury; the medical evidence linked the injury to the deceased's prolonged condition. On common intention, the Court emphasised that mere presence at the scene, even with a weapon, and passive assent are not sufficient, and that section 34 requires a prior meeting of minds or common design, which had not been established. On the alibi defence, it held that the credibility of alibi witnesses who are relatives is not to be rejected automatically merely because they are interested witnesses. Restating the distinction between a prima facie finding at the close of the prosecution case and proof beyond reasonable doubt at the end of the defence, and the principle in Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor governing when an appellate court will interfere with an acquittal, the Court held that the Sessions Court had not erred in law or fact. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal. The judgment is significant for its treatment of common intention and the appellate approach to an acquittal.

Why did the High Court uphold the acquittal?

It held that the Sessions Court had not erred in law or fact, applying the principle governing appellate interference with an acquittal. In particular, common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code was not established, since mere presence with a weapon and passive assent do not suffice without a prior meeting of minds.

How did the Court treat the alibi evidence of the respondent's relatives?

It held that the evidence of alibi witnesses who are relatives is not to be rejected automatically merely because they are interested witnesses, and that their evidence contributed to a reasonable doubt.

Cases Cited (14)

MY (14)
[1959] MLJ 193 [1963] MLJ 263 [1980] 2 MLJ 195 [1998] 3 CLJ 769 [2002] 3 CLJ 457 [2003] 1 CLJ 734 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2006] 1 CLJ 457 [2006] 5 CLJ 49 [2010] 1 CLJ 17 [2010] 7 CLJ 771 [2013] 5 CLJ 850 [2013] 9 CLJ 692 [2016] 7 CLJ 1

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ta-42lb-3-09-2024)