Ahmad Choirul Mustaqim (JA-45B-12-04/2019)

witnesses. [3] The court received two (2) psychiatric reports from Doctor Yeoh Chia Minh dated 1.4.2020 (ID28A), and Doctor Isabel Shamimi David dated 24.4.2022 (ID28B). Both reports state that the accused are fit to stand trial. [4] Based on these reports, the case proceeded with the full trial. [5] … The Prosecution Narratives [6] On 14.11.2018, SP7, Siti Nazirah Abd Aziz testified that she saw both the accused and the deceased lying on a long table in the warung that morning (3 a.m.) and around 5-6 a.m. she heard the deceased randomly saying, "I tak kacau u tidor, kenapa u kacau I tidor". Then the accused went closer to SP7, and she asked him if he wanted something to eat. The deceased took the packed food that SP7 was holding and gave it to the accused. The accused ate, and both sat down together. [7] When the deceased was seen leaving the accused, the accused asked him, "kau agama apa". The deceased replied, "India maa..". Then, the accused repeatedly said, "kau Yahudi". The accused continued saying, "ok kalau you India you ajar saya masuk India". The deceased replied "oh you masuk India, cakaplah baik-baik, I boleh ajar you". The two then walk towards the next stall. S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [8] At that moment, SP7 hears a sound like a glass is being smashed. SP7 could not see the accused or the deceased at this time because there was a barrier between the stalls. After 5 minutes, the deceased was seen coming out of the next stall with blood gushing out from his neck before he fell. Then, SP7 saw the accused, holding a bloody broken glass bottle, walking towards the deceased and saying, "kau Yahudi kan". [9] Agitated, SP7 then ran to the bus terminal to call the police. SP7 testified that the accused looked relaxed and casual as if nothing had happened. At that point, the accused did not attempt to run away. [10] SP6, Ramli bin Othman, testified that he owns a stall next to Warung Aziz, the place of the incident, and that day he received a call from his neighbour informing him that Boy (the deceased) was murdered. SP6 knew the deceased by the name of Boy, a homeless man whom he allowed to sleep in his stall. [11] SP6 rushed to the scene and, at about 7 a.m., saw the deceased leaning motionless against a table. He learned that the perpetrator was still in the vicinity. He and several others then arrested the accused as he was about to board a bus. The accused tried to resist, and a struggle ensued before SP6 managed to tie him up with a rope. [12] The deceased was pronounced dead at the scene, and from the pathologist's report (P7), it appears that the cause of death of the deceased was a slashed wound on the neck. It was submitted that the pattern of injury found was consistent with intentional homicide under s300(c) of the Penal Code. S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [13] SP6 gave evidence that the accused did not appear remorseful and was aggressive toward him. He also did not seem to care about the incident and appeared oblivious. SP6 confirmed that the accused did not even attempt to flee the scene, as he wandered around the premises for about 45 minutes before his arrest. [14] The pathologist's testimony, Dr Aznool Haidy bin Ahsorori, SP3, confirmed that the deceased had four (4) slash wounds on the neck and one (1) slash wound on the upper left side of the chest. One

slash wound was fatal and severed the internal structures of the neck, resulting in immediate death due to severe bleeding and impaired breathing. SP3 believed these injuries were consistent with the pattern of non-pointed, irregular, sharp-edged objects such as broken glass bottles. [15] DNA profiling was performed and analysed by Nur Liana binti Ishak, SP8, and revealed that the bloodstain on the broken bottle was from the deceased. [16] After the hearing of witnesses SP6 and SP7 on 24.1.2022, the accused's counsel applied before the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC), then, for a second review of the accused's mental state pursuant to s.342 CPC, which was granted, and the accused was then taken to Hospital Permai for observation. [17] A report dated 24.4.2022 was sent to all parties, and the proceedings continued as the psychiatrist confirmed that the accused were fit to stand trial. S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA Analysis and Findings [9] The Court of Appeal found that the accused was fit to stand trial and that the prosecution had established a prima facie case. The accused was directed to enter his defence. [10] The accused elected to remain silent and only called upon Dr Ian Lloyd Anthony (Dr Ian), a forensic psychiatrist, who is currently the Medical Director of Hospital Bahagia, Ulu Kinta, Perak. [11] The accused relied on the defence of unsound mind/insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code. The section provides the following: Section 84 Act of a person of unsound mind Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. [12] Pursuant to section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the defence to prove, on the balance of probability, that the accused is entitled and covered under the defence of unsoundness of mind. Section 105 provides: Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.

When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of those circumstances.

A accused of murder alleges that by reason of unsoundness of mind he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.

A accused of murder alleges that by grave and sudden provocation he was deprived of the power of self control. The burden of proof is on A.

Section 325 of the Penal Code provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt shall be subject to certain punishments. A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325. The burden of proving the circumstances, bringing the case under section 335, lies on A." [13] In the case of PP v Shalima Bi (2016) 1 MLJ 799, the Court of Appeal explained the distinction between legal and medical insanity. Reference was made to Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes 26th Edition, I quote the judgment of Abdul Rahman Sebli, JCA, as follows: "Medical insanity' and 'legal insanity'. - There is a good deal of difference between 'medical insanity' and 'legal insanity' and courts are concerned only with the legal and not the medical aspect of the matter. It is not every kind of frantic humour or something unaccountable in a men's action, that points him out to be a mad man, to be excepted from punishment. It is not mere eccentricity or singularity of manner that would suffice the plea of insanity. Abnormality of mind is not by itself sufficient to show that the accused must have acted while of unsound mind. Such exemption can be claimed only when the insane person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or he is doing either wrong or contrary to law." S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [14] Prior to the above case, the Court of Appeal in the case of John Nyumbei v. PP [2007] 2 CLJ 509, similarly discussed at length on the law on unsoundness of mind, and I quote: "10. The law on unsoundness of mind as a complete defence in our criminal jurisprudence is, as was correctly submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant, contained in s. 84 of the Penal Code. It states:

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

This section exempts a person found to be insane of any criminal responsibility if it is found that he is "incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law (see commentary in Ratanlal and Dirajlal's Law of Crimes, 25th edn, p 280). The learned authors there further commented that a person is not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even though he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also, if he knew what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong.

Thus, under s. 84 Penal Code, criminality has to be determined according to that legal test and not merely by the mental state of an accused person according to the medical test.

There is a distinction between the notion of a legal insanity and medical insanity. Not every form of insanity exempts a person from criminal responsibility. Only legal insanity provides that exemption under s. 84 Penal Code. The specie of insanity addressed by s. 84 is the one that impairs the cognitive faculties of a person. Its nature and extent must be that to make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of his act, or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. The criminality of an act therefore must be determined by this test laid down in s. 84 as distinguished from the medical test (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 25 edn. p. 280). As was stated recently by this court through the judgment of Ariffin S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA Zakaria JCA (as he then was) in PP v. Muhammad Suhaimi Abdul Aziz [2004] 1 CLJ 378: It is settled law that the defence of insanity under s. 84 is concerned with the accused's legal responsibility at the time of the alleged offence and not with whether he was medically insane at that time. See Pendakwa Raya v. Zainal Abidin bin Mat Zai [1993] 1 CLJ 147; PP v. Misbah bin Saat [1998] 1 CLJ 759; [1997] 3 MLJ 495.

When the defence of insanity is raised the court thus needs to consider two matters, namely:

whether the accused person has successfully established, as a preliminary issue, that at the time of committing the act he was of unsound mind, and

(ii) if he was of unsound mind, whether he has proven that his unsoundness of mind was of a degree to satisfy one of the tests earlier mentioned ie, that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act as being wrong or against the law. (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 5th edn., p. 289).

It is also settled law that the burden of proof rests on the person who raises the defence of insanity (see Juraimi bin Hussein v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 383 also Baharom v. PP [1960] CLJU 9; [1960] 1 LNS 9; [1960] 26 MLJ 249). And it is only the accused person who has this right to raise a defence of insanity. It is not open to the court or the prosecution to raise it (see PP v. Misbah bin Saat, supra).

The standard of proof upon the accused raising the defence of insanity is on a balance of probabilities, as in a civil case (Rajagopal v. PP [1976] CLJU 122; [1976] 1 LNS 122; [1977] 1 MLJ 6, Goh Yoke v. PP [1969] CLJU 48; [1969] 1 LNS 48; [1970] 1 MLJ 63). So, if the Appellant here is able to show, either from the prosecution or other evidence that he committed the crime but was at that time insane, he cannot be culpable by virtue of s. 84 Penal Code." -emphasis added S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [15] The above principles were then referred to and confirmed by the Federal Court in the recent case of PP v Mohd Rozani bin Yahaya (2025) 2 CLJ 21, which further held that: [41] Whereas, legal insanity involves a distinct set of criteria and considerations within the framework of the legal system. Unlike medical insanity, which involves a question of mental health only, legal insanity goes beyond mental health and pertains to one's legal capacity and responsibility for their actions. It involves a legal determination that a person, due to a severe mental disorder, is not criminally responsible for their actions. It is a legal status that affects the person's accountability for his actions in a court of law. This accords with the rationale of legal insanity being a recognised defence in criminal law, as it implies that, at the time when committing an offence, the accused was found to be in a state of not understanding the nature and consequences of his/her actions. Legal insanity is determined by legal standards, which may vary by jurisdiction. It entails assessments by mental health experts and legal professionals to analyse and evaluate the accused's mental state at the time of the alleged offence committed. The consequences of legal insanity may result in the accused being declared not criminally responsible or being committed to a psychiatric institution instead of facing traditional criminal penalties. [42] For the accused, to succeed on the defence of legal insanity, the accused must establish, often through psychiatric or psychological evaluations, that he/she was not in control of his/her reasoning during the commission of the offence. This defence is anchored in s. 84 of the Penal Code, which outlines the conditions under which an accused can be considered legally insane. [43] The burden of proof for medical and legal insanity also differs. In legal insanity, the onus lies with the accused to prove his/her mental state at the time when the offence was committed pursuant to s. 105 of the Evidence Act 1950. This burden, though significant, is not as onerous as the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt. It is on a balance of probabilities and not merely to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case (see Rajagopal v. PP [1976] CLJU 122; [1976] 1 LNS 122 and Goh Yoke v. PP [1969] CLJU 48; [1969] 1 LNS 48). S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [44] To establish legal insanity, the accused must present a prima facie case, supported by reasonable materials. This involves presenting evidence of the accused's conduct, before, during and immediately after the commission of the alleged offence, corroborated with the relevant medical documentation. The purpose is to convince the court that due to the accused's mental capacity, the accused should be exempt from full criminal responsibility. [45] In support of the above propositions of law, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tiong Ing Soon v. PP [2019] 7 CLJ 341 which was affirmed by the Federal Court on 24 September 2019 set out the procedure to be followed in determining legal insanity. [30] From the authorities, firstly, there must be a finding based upon medical evaluation that the accused was suffering from some kind of psychiatric condition that impaired his cognitive faculties at the material time so as to be classified as medically insane. This of course is a matter for a medical expert to determine. But is not conclusive. Secondly, in order to be legally insane, the accused must be determined by reason of that psychiatric condition to have lost his cognitive faculties to a degree such that he is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to the law. This stage is for the court to determine from the evidence adduced during the trial. The defence of insanity under s. 84 of Penal Code is concerned with the accused's legal responsibility at the time of the alleged offence and not whether he was medically insane at that time (see: Pendakwa Raya v. Zainal Abidin Mohd Zaid [1993] 1 CLJ 147;PP v. Misbah Saat [1998] 1 CLJ 759; [1997] 3 MLJ 495). The burden is on the appellant to prove his insanity as required under s. 84 of the Penal Code and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities (see: Goh Yoke v. PP [1969] CLJU 48; [1969] 1 LNS 48; [1970] 1 MLJ 63; Rajagopal v. PP [1976] CLJU 122; [1976] 1 LNS 122; [1977] 1 MLJ 6). See also Mohd Ferdaus Suwardi v. PP [2022] CLJU 1658; [2022] 1 LNS 1658 which was affirmed by the Federal Court on 4 January 2024 in MPRJ No. 05(M)- 110-05/2022(B) and John Nyumbei v. PP [2007] 2 CLJ 509. -emphasis added S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [16] As the defence of insanity was raised, I will now review the medical evaluation made by the experts to determine that the accused suffered from a mental illness at the time of the commission of the act and lost his reasoning requirement. Subsequently, due to that psychiatric condition, the evidence adduced during the trial will be analysed to see whether the accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to the law, in order to prove legal insanity. Expert Opinion [17] Dr Ian testified and tendered his medical report dated 21.10.2024, marked as Exhibit D30. Dr Ian states as follows:

The report was prepared and made reference to the charge, mental examination of the accused, 24 hours intensive nursing observation at the hospital, review of the accused's medical report from Hospital Permai, Forensic Psychiatry Reports dated 1.4.2020 and 24.4.2020, and the medical social report by Hospital Permai dated 10.3.2020.

Upon reviewing the accused's social life background and his psychiatric history, extracted from the medical social report, Dr Ian reported as follows: “5. Encik Ahmad Choirul Mustaqim berasal daripada Gilang Ngunut, Tulung Agung, Jawa Timur. Beliau merupakan anak bogsu daripada dua orang adik beradik. Ibu beliau meninggal dunia sewaktu beliau berusia 14 tahun. Bapanya telah berkahwin semula dan berpindah ke Sumatera. Encik Ahmad Choirul telah tinggal bersama neneknya selepas ibunya meninggal dunia.

Encik Ahmad Choirul bersekolah sehingga tahap menengah rendah. Beliau telah berhenti sekolah pada usia 15 tahun dan mula bekerja sebagai buruh kasar di kampung.

Beliau masuk ke Malaysia pada tahun 2015 dan bekerja sebagai buruh binaan. Beliau pulang ke Indonesia pada awal bulan Oktober 2018 dan hanya tinggal di kampung selama dua minggu sebelum kembali ke Malaysia. Dalam tempoh dua minggu tersebut, keluarga memerhatikan bahawa Encik Ahmad Choirul menunjukkan perubahan tingkah laku dimana beliau mudah marah dan mengamuk sehingga memecahkan cermin kereta jiran dan pinggan mangkuk serta merosakkan pagar rumahnya.

SEJARAH PENYAKIT PSIKIATRI Setelah kembali ke Malaysia pada pertnegahan Oktober 2018, Encik ahmad Choirul bekerja sebagai tukang kimpal di Kulai, Johor. Pada masa tersebut, beliau mengalami gejala-gejala psikosis dalam bentuk halusinasi suara dan delusi syak wasangka. Walaubagaimanapun, beliau tidak sedar bahawa pengalaman pelik tersebut berpunca daripada penyakit mental lalu tidak mendapatkan rawatan daripada mana-mana hospital.”

The accused was admitted to the Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta and went through the examination, observation, was interviewed and was treated by Dr Ian. Upon completion of the treatment, Dr Ian observed as follows: “14. Setelah dimasukkan ke Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Encik Ahmad Choirul telah diletakkan dibawah pemerhatian serta ditemubual dan diperiksa.

Pada awal kemasukkan ke wad, percakapan beliau adalah kurang relevan. Beliau didapati mengalami gejala delusi syak wasangka (paranoid delusions), delusi bahawa beliau dianiaya (persecutory delisions), gejala halusinasi suara (auditory hallucinations) dan gejala-gejala kemurungan. Beliau tidak memberikan kerjasama semasa pemeriksaan dijalankan serta diperhatikan duduk bersendirian dan tidak bercampur gaul dengan banduan-banduan lain. Rawatan ubatan antipsikotik telah dimulakan namun respons perubahan klinikal didapati terhad. Oleh yang demikian, beliau telah diberikan rawatan terapi elektrokonvulsif (electroconvulsive S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA therapy) sebanyak sembilan kali, dimana selepas rawatan ini, beliau menunjukkankemajuan klinikal yang memuaskan. Percakapan beliau kebali relevan dan beliau dapat memberikan kerjasama yang baik. Beliau tidak berkelakuan agresif dan tidak menunjukkan kecenderungan untuk membunuh diri.”

The accused was diagnosed with symptoms of schizophrenia and was treated with Olanzapine and Sertraline tablets daily, intramuscular fluphenazine decanoate injection monthly and electroconvulsive therapy.

Dr Ian's findings were as follows: “26. Setelah meneliti segala maklumat serta dari pemeriksaan dan pemerhatian yang telah dilakukan, saya berpendapat bahawa: a. Encik Ahmad Choirul Mustaqim mengidap penyakit Skizofrenia (Schizophrenia). b. Semasa melakukan perbuatan yang dituduh pada 14 November 2018, beliau berada dalam keadaan mental yang tidak waras dan tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya serta tidak mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatan tersebut adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. c. Keadaan mental beliau telah bertambah baik dengan rawatan yang diberi dan adalah stabil pada tarikh laporan ini ditulis. Beliau layak dihadapkan ke mahkamah untuk dibicarakan serta mampu untuk membela diri.” [18] In rebuttal, the prosecution had called Dr Ian's subordinate, Dr Yeoh Chia Minn (Dr Yeoh), a forensic psychiatrist, currently working in Hospital Sentosa, Kuching, Sarawak. Dr Yeoh had prepared the medical report dated 1.4.2020 when he was serving at Hospital Permai Johor Bharu as a psychiatrist. The report was referred to as an ID document (ID28A) as S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA Dr Yeoh was not called as a witness to properly mark the medical report at the prosecution stage. [19] As he now took the stand, ID28A is formally marked as an exhibit in court as P28A. In his report, he states as follows:

The accused was admitted on 6.1.2020 pursuant to section 342(5) of the CPC for mental examination and observation. This was his first admission to a psychiatric hospital.

Based on the examination and observation, Dr Yeoh was of the opinion as below, I quote: “10. Penama pernah mengambil pil ecstasy semasa berada di Indonesia sejak berumur 15 tahun. Menurut penama, kali terakhir beliau mengambil pil ecstasy adalah pada tahun 2018 ketika balik ke Indonesia.

Penama pernah mengambil syabu pada umur 24 tahun semasa bekerja di Malaysia. Penama mengambil syabu dengan kaedah chase. Penama mengambil syabu sebulan sekali dengan kadar RM50 setiap pengambilan.

Sepanjang penama berada di hospital ini, tingkah laku penama sentiasa di bawah pemantauan kakitangan kejururawatan. Penama tidak mengalami gejala kecelaruan mental dan emosi. Penama juga tidak mengalami gejala tarikan kepada dadah. Penama boleh memberikan kerjasama semasa ditemubual. Penama dapat menjawab soalan-soalan dengan baik. Percakapan penama boleh difahami.

Semasa berada di dalam wad, penama tidak menunjukkan tingkah laku aneh atau agresif. Penama juga tidak menunjukkan sebarang kecenderungan untuk mencederakan orang lain atau diri sendiri. Penama boleh berinteraksi dengan OKT-OKT lain. Penama dapat memberikan kerjasama dengan kakitangan serta dapat menguruskan kebersihan diri dan melakukan aktiviti harian dengan baik tanpa bantuan.

Pemeriksaan fizikal menunjukkan tatu di tangan kiri, bahu kanan dan di bahagian depan dada. Ujian darah tidak menunjukkan keputusan yang luar biasa. Ujian saringan dadah melalui air kencing adalah negatif.

Ujian imbasan otak Computerized tomography (CT) tidak menunjukkan keputusan yang luar biasa. Ujian electroencephalogram (EEG) tidak menunjukkan keputusan yang luar biasa. Penilaian psikologi menunjukkan penama mempunyai kecenderungan untuk mengada-adakan gejala psikosis.

Hasil daripada pemerhatian rapi 24 jam, meneliti sejarah penama dan pemeriksaan mental berkala yang dilakukan ke atas beliau sepanjang berada di hospital ini, saya berpendapat bahawa: a. Penama tidak mempunyai penyakit mental (No Mental Illness).” [20] The most crucial part of the findings of Dr Yeoh was that the accused had "no mental illness" and, in addition, as he testified, the accused was, possibly, faking his mental condition and the so-called whisper that he contended was a mere vulgar/derogatory words towards the deceased. [21] Having heard both experts' testimonies and perused their medical reports, I am of the considered view that the opinion of Dr Ian is more likely to represent the actual condition of the accused at the time the offence was committed. Therefore, I am inclined to accept that the accused had schizophrenia. When committing the offence on 14 November 2018, he was in an unsound mental state and was unaware of the nature and consequences of his act and was unable to know that the S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA act was wrong and contrary to the law. I therefore find that at the time when committing the offence, the accused was found to be in a state of not understanding the nature and consequences of his action, hence falls under the condition of medical and legal insanity. [22] The DPP submitted that P28A was prepared at the earliest possible time (about 1 year) upon the accused's admission to the hospital, and therefore the observation would be a more accurate reflection of his mental state, whilst Dr Ian's examination was conducted about 4 years after the incident. Hence, the findings of the accused's mental condition would likely be less precise or more reliable. [23] With regard to the above contention, I accept Dr Ian's explanation that the accused's mental state can still be identified from his present condition, by applying a retrospective assessment. Such an assessment was an accepted practice, and Dr Ian was of the opinion that the accused had suffered auditory and visual hallucinations since 2018. These were unique psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. Dr Ian further holds the view that the accused suffered primary delusional thinking, which indicates that the accused would have already been at a severe stage of schizophrenia back in 2018. [24] In addition, Dr Ian was of the view that the accused, besides auditory hallucinations, had also suffered paranoid delusions, persecutory delusions and symptoms of depression. It was also observed that the accused experiences hallucinatory voices, a product of the schizophrenia illness, which, over time, as the disease advances, if a person continues to experience auditory hallucinations, he will then believe that the voices speaking to him are something normal and becomes normalised in his mind, hence the accused does not feel distress. Dr Ian was also of the S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA view that a patient with schizophrenia, after having gone through the illness for many years, will not appear to be disturbed by the psychotic symptoms that they experience. [25] This explained why the accused was later found mingling around the crime scene instead of fleeing, and his appearance at the hospital when observed by Dr Yeoh. [26] In addition, Dr Ian testified that he had the opportunity to review the accused's psychiatry notes in Hospital Permai Johor Bahru and upon examining the notes, the accused complained, besides visual hallucinations, that he too experienced olfactory hallucinations. Olfactory hallucinations involve the sense of smell. It means the accused smells something that no one else in that vicinity can smell. This was documented in the psychiatric notes during the first two assessments done in Hospital Permai, Johor Bahru (the reports: P28A and ID28B). [27] Further, Dr Ian states that these two hallucinatory symptoms (visual and auditory) are very unique in almost 95% of patients with schizophrenia, but having visual and olfactory hallucinations is rare. It was Dr Ian's expert opinion that having both visual and olfactory hallucinations would indicate the severity of the schizophrenia and asserts that in this case, for the accused to be able to experience these additional hallucinations in these two modalities of smell as well as visual, represents its severe conditions. [28] Due to the above observation by Dr Ian, the accused was stabilised and treated with anti-psychotic medication and underwent nine electroconvulsive therapies. S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [29] I am minded to accept Dr Ian's opinion because, firstly, he was in a better position to offer his expert opinion, given his knowledge and vast experience in understanding the nature of mental illness, compared to Dr Yeoh. Secondly, his in-depth explanations elucidate the circumstances surrounding the offence at the time it was committed. [30] On the fated day, the accused was experiencing auditory hallucinations that were commanding the accused to kill the deceased, who was voiced as a "Yahudi". These auditory hallucinations pressured the accused, and he followed the voices' command. [31] The fact that the accused was still loitering around the crime scene, Dr Ian explained, indicated that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and gravity of his actions. [32] In conclusion, according to Dr Ian, schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. It is a "fixed firm false belief held with conviction, despite evidence to the contrary". That is the definition of a delusion. Having unstable emotions and actions, the accused signals deteriorating cognitive and social psychological function. Therefore, from Dr Ian's assessment, he finds that the accused had the diagnosis of schizophrenia, which qualifies as medical insanity and was so severe that it impacted upon his cognitive function so as to be incapable of knowing the nature of what he was doing was wrong or that it was against the law. [33] I find less convinced with the evidence by Dr Yeoh because, after considering the totality of the circumstances and testimonies from all witnesses, giving the background of all other available evidence in this particular case, Dr Ian's opinion is preferred as more trustworthy and realiable (see the case of Jitweer Singh a/l Ojagar Singh v PP (2016) 4 MLJ 525, CA). S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [34] The experts' views in this case were too contrasting: Dr Yeoh's approach was too simplistic, unlike Dr Ian's, which was more meticulous in its observations and explanations. I find that Dr Yeoh had not satisfactorily evaluated and explained the possibility that the accused suffered from schizophrenia, but merely brushed away the likelihood and concluded based on the appearance of the accused being stable and normal. I find these findings unreliable due to the fact that the accused had committed a brutal crime without an apparent reason or motive. [35] Based on the overall observation, Dr Ian was of the opinion that the accused was extremely psychotic during the time of the offence. I do not see any reason not to accept such findings, as the accused acted unappreciative of the seriousness of what he had done. [36] Having to go through electroconvulsive therapy nine (9) times within three (3) weeks reflects the seriousness of the illness. Therefore, I am satisfied, on the balance of probability, that the defence of unsound mind under section 84 of the Penal Code was successfully proven by the accused. [37] On the commission of the offence, I reproduce my factual findings in my initial grounds of judgment at paragraph 45-48 and 52 as follows: [45] The accused, in this case, was seen by SP7 holding the murder weapon, which was smeared with the blood of the deceased. The act in which the injuries were inflicted was not witnessed by anyone. However, I am of the opinion that the testimony of SP7 is as good as the direct evidence of an eyewitness. The accused was seen with the deceased before the killing, and he was still holding the broken glass (bottle glass) when the deceased collapsed. This evidence is sufficient to prove that the accused caused the deceased's injuries. Evidence of the Pathologist S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA [46] Seven (7) marks of injuries were found on the deceased's body. Five (5) slashed wounds on the neck and the chest, and the other two (2) were scratch abrasions on the right arm and the left buttock. [47] The deceased right artery and vein, his thyroid gland and right neck muscle were severed. SP3 believed that the slashed wound injuries caused an immediate fatality due to excessive bleeding and respiratory impairment. Those injuries were also, according to SP3, in pattern with non-pointed, irregular sharp objects such as broken glass bottles. [48] SP3 concluded that, from the post-mortem examination, the death of the deceased was caused by the slashed wound to the neck. … [52] Based on the evidence presented, I find that the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased. However, his unbalanced and distraught behaviour is a clear sign that he was not able to comprehend the consequences he now has to face…” [38] However, after considering the plea of insanity, I find that the accused suffered from mental incapacity, an unsound mind defined as legal and medical insanity under the law. Conclusion [39] Taking into account all relevant provisions and trite case law regarding the standard of proof at this stage, considering all credible evidence, and after maximum evaluation of the evidence, I am satisfied that the prosecution had prove the case beyond reasonable doubt on the commission of the offence, however, on the balance of probability, I have accepted the evidence of Dr Ian that the accused was medically and legally insane at the time of the committal of the offence, thus pursuant to S/N MxRhS3n9HU2zca0cescuIA section 84 of the Penal Code, being a complete defence entitled the accused for an aqquital. [40] The accused is therefore acquitted and discharged on the ground of mental disorder, and subsequent to that, an order for safe custody under s. 348(1) of the CPC is recorded. Dated : 2nd December 2025 (NOOR HAYATI BINTI HAJI MAT) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam, Selangor Representation :- For the Prosecution: Puan Juanita binti Mohd Said Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Aras 2, Bangunan Dato’ Jaafar Muhammad Kota Iskandar, Iskandar Puteri Johor. For the Accused: Ms. Ooi Pen Lyn Tetuan Gooi & Azura No. 12-1 & 14-1, Jalan Serkut Taman Pertama Cheras 56100 Kuala Lumpur.