Legal insanity differs from medical insanity; proving lack of knowledge regarding the act's nature is essential for a valid insanity defense.

The Charge

[1] The respondent was charged in the High Court at Johor Bahru with murder and the charge against her was as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 2 Februari 2011, jam lebih kurang 1.30 pagi, di rumah No 27, Jalan Kulai Besar, Taman Seraya, dalam Daerah Kulaijaya, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Ta'zim, telah membunuh seorang perempuan bernama Garanurharba bt Abdul Shukur (N Passport: Tiada) dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan."

[2] She was alleged to have poured hot oil on the deceased, causing her death. She claimed trial to the charge and was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case without her defence being called. The learned trial judge found that no prima facie case had been established against her as she was insane at the time she committed the act.

[3] Dissatisfied with the decision, the prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded, whereupon the respondent was ordered to enter her defence before the same judge. The learned judge after duly calling for her defence again acquitted and discharged her, on the same ground that she was insane at the time she committed the act. Pursuant to s 348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the CPC "), he ordered the respondent to be detained at the Tampoi Hospital Johor Bahru for treatment.

The Appeal

[4] Having heard arguments from both sides, we unanimously allowed the prosecution's appeal, convicted her of the offence charged and sentenced her to death. My learned sister Aziah Ali JCA and my learned brother Mohd Zawawi Salleh JCA have read the final draft of this judgment and have approved the same. These then are our grounds for allowing the appeal.

[5] There is only one issue before us in this appeal and that is whether the learned judge was right in law and on the facts in finding that the respondent had proved her defence of insanity under s 84 of the Penal Code ("the Code"), which provides as follows:

"84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."

[6] The prosecution conceded that the respondent was medically insane but disputed the learned judge's finding that she was legally insane at the time she committed the act. The basis of the learned judge's finding is encapsulated in the following three paragraphs of his judgment at p 42 of the appeal record:

"Oleh itu saya memutuskan bahawa OKT tidak bersalah di atas pertuduhan membunuh si mati atas sebab ketidakwarasan mental serta tidak berupaya memahami tentang akibat dari setiap perbuatan yang beliau lakukan. Hakikat OKT yang telah menyebabkan kecederaan kepada si mati sehingga si mati menemui ajalnya itu, tidak dinafikan.

Oleh sebab ketidakwarasan mental, OKT tidak memahami akan perbuatan beliau hingga menyebabkan kematian si mati adalah salah dan menyalahi undang-undang.

Pihak pembelaan telah berjaya membuktikan Pembelaan "insanity" dalam kes ini. OKT memang tidak waras. Di dalam situasi sedemikian, di bawah s 347 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ), OKT perlu dilepaskan dari pertuduhan."

[7] It was a reaffirmation of the reasons he gave in acquitting the respondent at the close of the prosecution case, where he had said at p 25 of the appeal record:

"Dari apa yang dinyatakan di atas, suatu hakikat yang tidak dapat dinafikan ialah OKT ini sememangnya bukanlah seorang yang waras. Selain dari laporan Dr Badiah di D29, kelakuan dan perangai OKT semasa perbicaraan berlangsung, sudah terang lagi bersuluh, dia memang se