The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302, emphasizing witness reliability and the evidentiary burden on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[1] This is a judgment with which all members of the court agree.

[2] Challenge in this appeal is the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant herein, by the High court Shah Alam, Selangor. The appellant was charged and tried for two offences of murder punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code . At the end of the defence case, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death.

[3] We heard the appeal on 3 January 2013 and dismissed it for lack of merit. The conviction and sentence passed by the High court were affirmed.

The Charges

[4] The charges proffered against the appellant are as follows:

1st Charge:

"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Disember 2003 jam lebih kurang 1 petang di rumah No 19, Tingkat 5 Flat Cempaka Bandar Baru, Klang telah melakukan bunuh dengan sengaja menyebabkan kematian seorang perempuan Melayu bernama Siti Rohana bt Bahrum kad pengenalan 690727-10-5032, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama."

2nd Charge:

"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Disember 2003 jam lebih kurang 1 petang di rumah No 19, Tingkat 5 Flat Cempaka Bandar Baru, Klang telah melakukan bunuh dengan sengaja menyebabkan kematian seorang budak lelaki bernama Muhammad Nur Osama mykid no 010908-10-1303, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama."

[5] In order to appreciate the issues raised by the appellant in this appeal, the following salient facts of the case must be noted.

The Prosecution's Case

[6] Normah Jantan (SP13) is the biological mother of Siti Aishah (SP15) and Aizat Asmawi (Awi). Ever since herbirth, SP15 was cared by SP13's cousin, Muhamad bin Jaafar (SP9) and his wife, Siti Rohana (the first deceased). The first deceased was also the babysitter of the second deceased.

[7] SP13 informed the court that at the material time, she was having a relationship with the appellant. On 2 December 2003, she and Awi visited SP9 and the first deceased at their home. They were accompanied by the appellant. After the visit, SP13 left Awi under the care of SP9 and his wife. Awi returned to his mother on the following week.

[8] On 29 December 2003, the appellant went to the first deceased's house to take back Awi's clothing, while SP13 and Awi waited in the car. They left in the appellant's car an hour later. The appellant asked SP13 the value of a chest length gold necklace in which SP13 estimated at RM1000.

[9] SP15 was present in the house during both visits by the appellant.

[10] On 30 December 2003, the appellant took SP13 and Awi with his car and they again went to the Cempaka Flat. The appellant told SP13 to wait inside the car while he visited his friend. The appellant was wearing a white shirt and black jeans.

[11] The appellant returned an hour later and took something from the bonnet. He later switched on the engine and informed SP13 he would return in 5-10 minutes.

[12] The appellant only returned after 30 minutes. SP13 saw blood stain on the right side of the appellant's white shirt. The appellant told SP13 that his hand was injured. The appellant was agitated because SP13 was asking too many questions.

[13] The appellant later stopped at a mosque where he changed his clothes. The couple spent the night at Shah Alam. The appellant later abandoned SP13 at the express bus station.

[14] SP15 recounted the events of that fateful day. She was watching the TV programme when the appellant arrived at the house. The appellant was chatting with the first deceased. The first deceased asked for SP13's contact num