Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2293
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WAN MUHAMMAD AZRAMI WAN ZULLKIFLI – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: B-05(M)-43-02/2021 B-05(M)-44-02/2021 & B-05(M)-51-03/2021]
The court affirmed that discharging a firearm during the commission of a robbery indicates intent to cause harm, and the prosecution's evidence sufficiently upheld the conviction despite the appellants' claims of innocence.
Headnote:(A) Firearms (Increased Penalty) Act 1971 - Sections 3 and 3A - Conviction of accused for discharging a firearm during a gang-robbery - All accused found guilty; sentenced to death by hanging - Appeals against conviction dismissed, but sentences reduced to 30 years imprisonment with whipping - Evidence established that firearm was discharged with intent to cause injury or death. (Paras 1-6, 26, 44-46)
(B) Criminal Law - Standard of proof - Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Defence must raise reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case - Appellants failed to provide credible evidence to counter prosecution's claims. (Paras 28-30, 39-42)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were charged for discharging a firearm during a gang-robbery on 28 September 2015, resulting in injury to a victim. The trial judge found overwhelming evidence against them, leading to their conviction and sentencing to death. (Paras 1-6, 19-20)
Findings of Court:
The trial judge concluded that the prosecution had proven all elements of the offences against the appellants, including their intent and knowledge regarding the firearm used. The High Court judge found the witness credible and the evidence corroborative. (Paras 19-24, 35-42)
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellants raised reasonable doubt regarding their involvement and the credibility of the prosecution's witness. (Paras 28-30, 38-39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discharge of the firearm during the commission of a robbery indicates intent to cause harm, and the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction despite the appellants' claims of innocence. (Paras 32-34, 44-46)
Result: Appeals dismissed on conviction; sentences reduced to 30 years imprisonment with whipping for two appellants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details of the appellants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. prosecution's case established through witness evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. trial judge's findings on evidence and credibility. (Para 19 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. defence arguments presented by the appellants. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. court's analysis of defence claims and reasonable doubt. (Para 27 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. court's decision based on statutory interpretation. (Para 28 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36) |
| 7. assessment of witness credibility and discrepancies. (Para 35 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. final decision on appeals and sentencing. (Para 44) |
Introduction
[1] There are three (3) separate appeals before this Court emanating from the decision of the High Court dated 17 February 2021 in convicting and sentencing the Appellants.
[2] At the High Court, the trial involved 4 accused as follows:
(i) Mohd Asrizal bin Mohd Ibrahim (Appellant in Appeal No B-05(M)-44-02/2021 and hereinafter will be referred to as "OKT1")
(ii) Wan Muhammad Azrami bin Wan Zulkifli (Appellant in Appeal No B-05(M)-43-02/2021 and hereinafter will be referred to as "OKT2")
(iii) Ahmad Faisal bin Muda (discharged not amounting to acquittal on 5 October 2017 due to the reason that the accused had been died)
(iv) Mat Salleh bin Noh (Appellant in Appeal No B-05(M)-51-03/2021 and hereinafter will be referred to as "OKT3")
[3] OKT1 was charged as follows:
"Bahawa kamu pada 28 September 2015, jam lebih kurang 1930 hrs bertempat di tempat letak kereta Blok D, Apartment Mentari Court, Jalan PJS 8/9, Petaling Jaya, di dalam daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati melepaskan tembakan senjata api semasa melakukan rompakan berkumpulan dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian atau kecederaan ke atas Pratap a/l Ramasamy No K/P: 831003-06-5297. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 3 Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971."
[4] OKT 2 was charged as follows:
"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama dengan (1) orang yang telah meninggal dunia dan Mat Salleh bin Noh (No K/P: 710729-03-5141) pada 28 September 2015, jam lebih kurang 1930 hrs bertempat di tempat letak kereta Blok D, Apartment Mentari Court, Jalan PJS 8/9, Petaling Jaya, di dalam daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, semasa melakukan rompakan berkumpulan dengan seorang rakan kamu nama Mohd Asrizal bin Mohd Ibrahim Yong (No K/P: 850609-03-6179) telah melepaskan tembakan senjata api dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian atau kecederaan ke atas Pratap a/l Ramasamy No K/P: 831003-06-5297 yang mana kamu mempunyai pengetahuan rakan kamu membawa senjata api semasa melakukan rompakan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 3A Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971."
[5] While OKT3 was charged as follows:
'Bahawa kamu bersama-sama dengan (3) orang lagi yang telah dituduh, pada 28 September 2015, jam lebih kurang 1930 hrs bertempat di tempat letak kereta Blok D, Apartment Mentari Court, Jalan PJS 8/9, Petaling Jaya, di dalam daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, semasa melakukan rompakan berkumpulan dengan seorang rakan kamu nama Mohd Asrizal bin Mohd Ibrahim Yong (No K/P: 850609-03-6179) telah melepaskan tembakan senjata api dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian atau kecederaan ke atas Pratap a/l Ramasamy No K/P: 831003-06-5297 yang mana kamu mempunyai pengetahuan rakan kamu membawa senjata api semasa melakukan rompakan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 3A Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971."
[6] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned High Court Judge found that all the Appellants guilty the charges. The appellants ware sentenced to death by hanging.
[7] Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the Appellants now appealed to this Court. We heard the appeals on the 17 August 2023. A
