Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2166
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF, FCJ
PP – Appellant
Versus
MOHD ROZANI YAHAYA – Respondent
[MPRJ No: 05(LB)-117-11-2023(D)]
The Federal Court ruled that a trial judge must allow an accused to present their defense before acquitting them on grounds of insanity, emphasizing the distinction between medical and legal insanity.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Sections 84 and 85(2)(b) - Appeal against acquittal on grounds of insanity - High Court acquitted accused without calling for defense - Court of Appeal affirmed - Federal Court found that the trial judge erred in not allowing the accused to enter defense, necessitating a retrial. (Paras 30, 74)
(B) Insanity Defense - Distinction between medical and legal insanity - Accused's mental state evaluated but not conclusively proven to meet standards for legal insanity - Burden of proof on accused to establish defense. (Paras 37, 56)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with murder; the High Court acquitted him based on a defense of insanity, citing mental health issues but did not call for the defense to be presented. (Paras 1, 18)
Findings of Court:
The Federal Court found that the acquittal was premature, as the accused should have been allowed to present his defense regarding his mental state at the time of the offense. (Paras 74)
Issues: Whether the trial judge erred in acquitting the accused without calling for a defense, and the implications of the definitions of insanity under the Penal Code. (Paras 30, 60)
Ratio Decidendi: The acquittal was based on insufficient examination of evidence regarding the accused's mental state and the failure to allow for a complete defense, which is necessary for determining legal insanity. (Paras 57, 73)
Result: Appeal allowed; case remitted back to the High Court for continuation of the trial.
[1] The appeal herein is by the prosecution against the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the High Court . The High Court had acquitted the respondent (herein referred to as "the accused") premised on the defence of insanity, without the accused being called to enter his defence.
[2] After hearing the submissions from both parties (both written and oral) and perusing through the Records of Appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeal by the prosecution and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Consequently, we ordered that the case be remitted back to the High Court for continuation of the trial and the accused be called upon to enter his defence on the charge preferred against him. We set our reasons herein below for the said decision.
The Charge
[3] The charge against the accused is as follows:
"Bahawa kamu pada 25 Januari 2018 lebih kurang jam 12.00 tengah hari di tepi rumah di Kampung Apa-Apa, Bunut Susu, Pasir Mas, di dalam Jajahan Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan telah membunuh Ab Halim bin Che Yusoff (K/P: 491231-03-6561) dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan."
Background Facts
[4] On 25 January 2018, the wife of the deceased (SP5), heard a loud noise as if something was thrown ("pekung") at the house in which she and the deceased were staying. However, SP5 advised the deceased to ignore it, but another object was thrown at the house and SP5 took her grandchild who was with her into the house. After a third object was thrown, SP5 saw the deceased going to the accused's father's (SP11) house. SP5 heard the deceased asked SP11, "Why didn't you stop your son from throwing things at my house?" ("bakpo mu tak larang anak kamu pekung rumah aku?"), but failed to hear any response from SP11.
[5] SP5 then saw the deceased going towards the accused (who was going towards the back of SP11's house). SP11 followed the deceased to the back of SP11's house.
[6] SP5 said that, later when everything went quiet, she went to have a look behind SP11's house. It was then that SP5 saw the accused, who was shirtless and wearing a three-quarter length shorts, slightly below the knees, running behind the house carrying an iron rod. SP5 then ran to the front of SP11's house and when she saw SP11, asked him what had happened. At the same time, SP5 said she saw blood stains on SP11's clothes.
[7] SP5 then returned to where the deceased was lying and, together with SP6 (a neighbour to SP5 and the deceased) and the deceased's nephew, "Li", lifted the deceased back to their house.
[8] SP6 testified that, at the time of the incident, SP6 was repairing a room at the back of his house when he heard the deceased scolding someone saying, "Why are you so bad, throwing things at my house?" ("kenapa mu jahat sangat pekung rumah aku?"). Upon hearing this, SP6 looked through the window of his house, which faced the deceased's house. SP6 saw the accused throwing something at the deceased's house, despite being reprimanded by the deceased. When the accused threw something for the third time at the deceased's house, SP6 saw the deceased left his house, grabbed something from a shed in front of his house, and went towards the accused to chase him away. SP6 saw the accused ran towards the back of the house. SP6 saw the deceased followed the accused to the back of the house, accompanied by the accused's father, SP11. At that point, SP6's view was obstructed by SP11's house, and he could no longer see the three individuals.
[9] A moment later, SP6 saw SP5 came out of her house and ran towards the place where the three of them (the accused, the deceased and SP11) had gone behind SP11's house. SP6 further stated that within 10 seconds, he saw and heard SP5 screaming, "Help, my husband is dead" ("Tolong, mati dah laki aku"), while running towards the road between his house and SP11's house. SP6 saw SP5 ran towards the dec
