Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2695
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YOU POH KHOON – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: A-05(M)-244-05/2022]
The defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code requires the accused to prove incapacity to understand the nature of the act or its wrongfulness, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction for murder - The Appellant was found guilty of murdering his father by decapitation and dismemberment - The prosecution established a prima facie case through circumstantial evidence, including the Appellant's admissions and DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene - The Appellant's defense of insanity was rejected based on expert testimony and his behavior post-crime, indicating awareness of wrongdoing. (Paras 1-48)
(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 27 - Circumstantial evidence and admissibility of statements leading to discovery of remains - The Court emphasized the probative value of the Appellant's admissions and the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of those statements. (Paras 11, 16, 22, 34)
(C) Insanity Defense - The court reiterated the burden on the accused to prove insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code, highlighting the distinction between medical and legal insanity, and the need for clear evidence of incapacity to understand the nature of the act or its wrongfulness. (Paras 40-46)
(D) The court found the Appellant's actions and statements demonstrated awareness of the nature of his acts, thus upholding the conviction and death sentence. (Paras 22-48)
Findings of Court:
The conviction for murder and death sentence were affirmed, with the court concluding that the defense of insanity was not proven.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeal process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal standards for murder under the penal code. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's findings at the close of prosecution's case. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. defendant's testimony and mental state. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court's findings and conclusions on the trial. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. defense arguments on the appeal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. prosecution's rebuttal to defense claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. legal standards for insanity defense. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 10. court's analysis of the insanity defense. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 11. conclusion of the appeal process. (Para 47) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by You Poh Khoon ("the Appellant" or "the Accused") against the decision of the High Court which found that the Appellant was guilty of the charge and convicted under s 302 of the Penal Code . The Appellant was sentenced to death.
[2] After reading the written submissions filed, hearing both parties orally and perusing the records of appeal, we unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Prosecution Case
[3] The Appellant was alleged to have decapacitated his father, You Su Kim, causing his death and thereafter cut off the hands and legs of the deceased. The charge against the him reads as follows:
"Bahawa kamu di antara 8 Oktober 2018, jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang hingga 9 Oktober 2018, jam lebih kurang 10.30 pagi, di alamat No 564, Khantan Baru, Chemor, lpoh, di dalam daerah Kinta, di dalam negeri Perak, telah membunuh You Su Kim, (No. KP 441111-08-5427) dan oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 302 Kanun Keseksaan."
[4] The learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") had outlined the material facts of prosecution case in his grounds of judgment which we respectfully adopt them with modification whenever necessary.
[5] It is on 9 October 2018, at approximately 9.20 am., when SP5, SP7 and SP6 came to the deceased's house for a visit, they could not find the deceased. SP5 then contacted the Appellant and she was informed that the deceased was sleeping.
[6] At around 10.30 am., SP5 contacted her husband who is SP3 and informed him that the deceased and the Appellant could not be found. After that, SP3 received call from the Appellant who asked him to come back to his rented house. When SP3 arrived, he saw that the Appellant was waiting outside the house.
[7] When SP3 asked the Appellant in Chinese language whether the Appellant take care of the father. The Appellant then replied that he had cut the father to death. SP3 further asked how the Appellant cut the deceased and where he kept the deceased. The Appellant answered that he had cut off the deceased's legs, hands and head. The legs, hands and head then were buried behind the house and the body was thrown into a sewage tank. SP3 was not shocked as he knows that the Appellant has mental problem. Then SP3 asked the Appellant to show him the deceased whereabout so that they can perform burial ceremony for the deceased. They arrived at the crime scene around 12.00 pm. The Appellant then showed to SP3 the back of the house which the Appellant informed SP3 on the location of the deceased. SP3 can see that the sewage tank was open and there is mark on the ground.
[8] After that, SP3 brought the Appellant to a restaurant near Chemor. At that time, SP3 already informed his son SP4 to contact SP5 [SP3 wife's] with instruction for SP5 to dig into the ground at the back of the Appellant's house and check whether the deceased's part of body can be found.
[9] Upon received the instruction from SP4, SP5 and SP6 went to the house and dug into the ground where SP5 found the head of the deceased. SP5 then informed the neighbor, SP2. SP2 lodged a report in Laporan Polis Khantan Baru Rpt 795/2018 (Exhibit P6).
[10] SP8 had arrested the Appella
