Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4390
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
SAMIRAH MUZAFFAR & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: B-05(LB)-282-06/2022 & B-05-293-07/2022]
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case in murder charges by proving each element beyond reasonable doubt, including causation, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 180 - Murder - Prosecution's appeal against acquittal of respondents for murder due to failure to prove third element of offence that respondents caused injuries leading to death. (Paras 15, 32, 33)
(B) The High Court ruling was based on lack of evidence to show time of death and that last seen together theory failed to apply as there was no connection demonstrated between respondents and crime. Court noted that the allegation of common intention among respondents was unfounded and rooted in mere occupancy of the same home. (Paras 20, 22, 25, 48, 106)
(C)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found insufficient evidence to connect the respondents or establish a prima facie case against them. Appeal affirmed. (Paras 107, 110)
(D)
Issues: Main issues included ability of prosecution to prove causation of death, time of death, applicability of last seen together theory, and existence of motive or common intention among respondents. (Paras 26, 32, 33) (E)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that in criminal cases, suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and prosecution must prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. (Paras 112-119) (F)
Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondents upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of appeals against murder acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of prosecution's case. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's findings on prosecutorial burden. (Para 7) |
| 4. preliminary objections raised by prosecution. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's analysis of appellate powers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. legal definitions of murder under penal code. (Para 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's evaluation of evidence and its implications. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. legal principles on prima facie case requirements. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. application of circumstantial evidence. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. evaluation of expert witness credibility. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 11. discussion on opportunity to commit the offense. (Para 47 , 50) |
| 12. clarification on motives and conduct. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 13. court's conclusion on case evidence. (Para 85) |
Introduction
[1] There are two appeals before us. One by the prosecution and the other by the defence.
[2] The Appeal No B-05(LB)-282-06/2022 ("Appeal 282") concerns the prosecution's appeal against the decision of the High Court in acquitting and discharging all three respondents on grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove the 3rd element of the offence of murder, ie whether the respondents had caused the injuries which resulted in the deceased's death. Whilst, Appeal No B-05-293-07/2022 ("Appeal 293") is confined to the defence's appeal against certain findings made by the High Court in relation to the 2nd element of murder as to whether the deceased's death was caused by the injuries inflicted on him.
Background facts
[3] The respondents, together with another person still at large, were jointly charged with an offence of murder punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code . The charge read as follows:
"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama dengan seorang lagi yang masih bebas, iaitu Eka Wahyu Lestari (No. Passport Indonesia AT 752298), di antara jam 11.30 malam, 13 Jun 2018 dan jam 4.00 pagi, 14 Jun 2018 di rumah No 12A, Jalan PJU 7/24A, Mutiara Homes, Mutiara Damansara, di dalam daerah Petaling Jaya, di dalam Negeri Selangor, bagi mencapai niat bersama, kamu telah melakukan pembunuhan dengan menyebabkan kematian ke atas Nazrin bin Hassan (No. KP: 731030-10-5065) dan oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama- sama s 34 Kanun yang sama."
[4] The trial proceeded against the respondents in the absence of the 4th co-accused, Eka Wahyu Lestari ("Eka"). The learned trial judge acquitted and discharged all the respondents at close of prosecution's case on grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case.
[5] This resulted in the prosecution filing Appeal 282 and the defence filing Appeal 293.
Summary Of The Prosecution's Case
[6] The prosecution's case, based on the evidence before the High Court, can be summarised as follows:
(i) The 1st respondent, Samirah binti Muzaffar ("Samirah") is the wife of the deceased, Nazrin bin Hassan. Both the 2nd respondent, Haziq Aiman bin Nizam Mydin ("Haziq") and the 3rd respondent, Naufal Aalif bin Nizam Mydin ("Naufal") are Samirah's sons from a previous marriage. Thus, Haziq and Naufal were the deceased's step-sons. All three respondents and the deceased lived in the same house at No 12A, Lorong PJU 7/24A, Mutiara Damansara, Selangor Darul Ehsan, situated within a gated and guarded community known as Mutiara Homes ("the family home"). The 4th co-accused, an Indonesian national, worked as their live-in house maid in the family home. Samirah had two other young children from her marriage to the deceased, who also lived in the family home.
(ii) During Ramadan at about 11.30pm on 13 June 2018, the deceased was dropped off by his driver, Muhammad Nabil Faqih bin Abd Rahim (PW28), at the family home.
(iii) The following day, on 14 June 2018 at about 12.24pm, one of Samirah's neighbo
