Fu Jia Zhi, Universiti Utara Malaysia
The appellant of the case was charged under Section 300 of the Penal Code (the Code) for the offence of murder for repeatedly stabbing the wife of his employer (the deceased), leading to her death. The autopsy revealed that there were injuries over her face, head, neck, chest, abdomen, hand and leg and that the cause of death were the injuries to the head and pressure exerted on the neck. The knife and scissors found on the scene were consistent with the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The appellant argued that he was provoked by the deceased who insulted his parents to the extent that he lost his self-control due to the immense anger. The sudden and grave provocation caused the appellant to lose his mind and attack the deceased, therefore he could not be convicted under the offence of murder. However, the cruelty of inflicting 41 stab wounds on the deceased and the insufficient evidence to establish grave and sudden provocation formed the basis of the High Court's judgment, convicting him of murder and sentencing him to death. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's decision.
Our position aligns with that of the court that the offense committed by the appellant falls under the limbs of murder instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 of the Code. It is noteworthy that there was a slight distinction between the offenses of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is the intention of the offender. It requires a higher degree of blameworthy state of mind before a conviction of murder can be upheld. Referring to the Federal Court case of Pubalan A/L Peremal v Public Prosecutor, both offenses can be distinguished by the degree of possibility resulting in death. It ruled that it constitutes culpable homicide if death is a possible outcome. In contrast, it is a murder if death is the most likely outcome. Besides, it is well-established in law that offenses that do not meet the criteria for murder are categorized as culpable homicide, including cases that fall within the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the Code.
As mandated under Section 300 of the Penal Code, a culpable homicide is murder when there is intention to cause death or grievous harm which is likely to cause death, intention to cause grievous harm which would in ordinary course of nature cause death or commission of act that will in all probability lead to death. It is prerequisite for the offender to consciously desire to commit an act causing death or grievous harm likely to result in death, driven by their knowledge that such as would in all probability or in ordinary manner cause death. That is to say, the resulting death must be more than an accidental incident; it must be the intended outcome consciously caused by the offender.
Both courts ruled that the appellant’s offence fell well within the third limb of Section 300 of the Code as the injuries inflicted on the deceased was in ordinary course of nature causing her death. In order to establish murder under this provision, the prosecution must prove that the offender intended to cause grievous injuries and that he knows such injuries will in ordinary manner lead to one’s death. The element of intention must be deduced from circumstantial evidence, such as the location of the injuries, the weapon used, the number of attacks and the element of cruelty and violence. In the case of Mahadzir Bin Yusof & Anor v Public Prosecutor, the court considered the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, as well as the weapon used, to determine the accused's intent. The court held that the act of stabbing the neck of the deceased with a knife was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of intention under Section 300 of the Code. By applying the principles to this present case, the appellant had acted in cruelty and abuse by using dangerous weapons, such as a knife and scissors, to inflict a massive number of injuries that amounts to 41 stab wounds on the head of the deceased, a vital and vulnerable part of the body. Through this evidence, it is reasonable to infer that the appellant intended to kill the deceased and has the knowledge that such actions would inevitably cause fatal injuries, which in the ordinary course of events resulted in the victim's death.
It is apparent that the exception of Section 300 of Penal Code does not apply as there was insufficient evidence in proving the grave and sudden provocation. The Appellant in the case prayed to reduce the gravity of offence from murder to culpable homicide by invoking the Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Code. Grave and sudden provocation refers to the event of provocation that is unexpected and instant, which often leads to losing self-control from the part of the offender. As demonstrated in the case of Public Prosecutor v Surbir Gole, the Federal Court highlighted that while the provocative words uttered by the deceased might not be gravely provocative by themselves, the court must weigh all circumstances before and during the provocation. It was held that a reasonable person, belonging to the same societal class as the accused and placed in similar circumstances, could be so provoked as to lose self-control due to the consistent and persistent mental torture and verbal assault.
At the defense stage, the appellant contended that the deceased often expressed her anger towards him by scolding him for being on leave and that, on the day of the incident, she provoked him by saying he was just like his parents, whom she considered troublesome. Having the same view with the court’s decision, the provocation seemed to be insufficient to deprive the Appellant’s self-control. Other than that, the act of the appellant having a break in the midst of stabbing the deceased and drinking water before continuing stabbing the deceased were the obvious evidence that there was a cooling period and that the appellant had acted with hatred and revenge rather than response to the provocation. Therefore, the contention of the appellant stabbed in the heat of anger until losing self-control could not be sustained.
In light of the evidence and legal principles, it is evident that the appellant's actions were intentional at causing grievous injuries, which, in the ordinary course of nature, resulted in death. It falls well within the scope of murder under Section 300 of the Penal Code. The cruelty of the act, the number of injuries inflicted, and the absence of sufficient provocation affirmed that the appellant acted with intent to kill. In our humble view, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were correct in convicting the appellant of murder and sentencing him accordingly. This case serves as a clear application of the legal principles distinguishing murder from culpable homicide and reinforces the need for sufficient evidence to justify any claim of grave and sudden provocation.
REFERENCE
Penal Code
Pubalan A/L Peremal v Public Prosecutor
Public Prosecutor v Abu Bakar bin Mahamad & Anor [2021] MLJU 141
Public Prosecutor v Surbir Gole
Mahadzir Bin Yusof And Anor v Public Prosecutor [2010] MLJU 1364
Comments