An act resulting in death can be classified as murder if the intent was to inflict bodily injury sufficient to cause death, regardless of intent to kill.

Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ:

[1] In the High Court at Muar, Johor, the appellant was charged with the murder of 75 year old Law Pow Ling and the charge against him was as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 22 November 2013 jam di antara 12.01 pagi hingga 8.30 pagi bertempat di Syarikat Perniagaan Choong, No 101, Jalan Jelawat, Taman Banang di dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, dalam Negeri Johor Darul Ta'zim, telah melakukan kesalahan bunuh hingga menyebabkan kematian Law Pow Ling (No KP: 390319-01-5252) dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan."

[2] He claimed trial to the charge at the conclusion of which he was found guilty and sentenced to death. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, hence the appeal before us. Having heard arguments by the parties on 17 November 2021, we dismissed the appeal and these are our grounds.

[3] The facts may be summarised as follows. Chong Yong Lieng (SP3) is the son of the deceased, Law Pow Ling. He runs a sundry shop selling household goods at No 101, Jalan Jelawat, Batu Pahat, Johor. The shop has one bedroom. SP3 does not stay at the shop but his late mother (the deceased) did and she stayed there alone. SP3's daily routine was to close the shop at 10.30pm and returned to his house located about 1.5 kilometers away from the shop. Before going home, SP3 would make sure that the deceased had gone to bed. He would then lock the front and back doors of the shop from the outside.

[4] Every morning, SP3's uncle, one Yeo Chung Kin would come over to the shop to bring the deceased to his restaurant to cook. However, on the morning of 22 November 2013, Yeo Chung Kin could not reach out to the deceased, so he called SP3 by phone and asked SP3 to check on her.

[5] At about 8.00am on the same date, SP3's elder brother, Chong Ying Kong (SP4) came over to the shop. His intention was to bring the deceased out for breakfast. SP4 knocked on the back door of the shop and at the same time calling out for the deceased for about 30 minutes but there was no response. SP4 then called SP3.

[6] SP3 arrived at the shop slightly after 8.00am. He found the two front doors closed. He tried to open the grille but could not as it was locked from inside. SP3 and SP4 knocked on the door and called for the deceased but there was no response. SP3 and SP4 then decided to break the iron door using a hammer. They then entered the shop.

[7] The shop was in a mess. It appeared to have been ransacked. The drawer had been opened and the files inside the drawer were scattered all over the floor. The cupboard behind the counter had also been opened and things inside the cupboard had fallen to the floor. As SP4 was inspecting the shop, he realized that seven RM1 coins that he had given to SP3 as presents were missing. The lights inside the shop and in the deceased's bedroom were still switched on.

[8] Just outside the door to the deceased's bedroom, SP4 saw a knife (P11A(1)) and a baseball bat (P10A) which had bloodstains on it. The knife and the baseball bat were items that belonged to the shop.

[9] SP3 and SP4 then entered the deceased's bedroom. There they saw their late mother lying motionless on the bed with her legs dangling down and touching the floor. There were traces of blood on the mattress and on the deceased's head. SP3 and SP4 tried to wake the deceased up by shaking her body but there was no reaction from the deceased.

[10] When SP3 went out of the bedroom, he saw a hole measuring about 2 x 4 feet at the ceiling of the shop. Apparently the perpetrator of this hideous crime had entered the shop through the ceiling after removing the roof tiles. SP3 then called the Batu Pahat Police station. The police swung into action and their investigation culminated in the arrest of the appellant on 22 January 2014 for the murder of the deceased.

[11] On the strength of the evidence led by the prosecution at the close of its case, the learned trial judge found, correctly in our view,