Normazila Binti Hassan (BA-45B-9-03/2024)

Orang Kena Tuduh (OKT), Normazila binti Hassan (OKT) telah dipertuduh dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.

Pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan: Bahawa kamu pada 24/10/2023 jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang di rumah beralamat F10-8-76, Jalan Permai 2/14, Taman Puchong Permai, 47150 Puchong, dalam daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati membunuh Saadiah binti Mat Dali (No. K/P: 650614-07- 5002) dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan. Hukuman: Gantung sampai mati atau penjara tidak kurang dari tiga puluh tahun tetapi tidak lebih empat puluh tahun dan sekiranya tidak dihukum mati, boleh dihukum dengan sebatan tidak kurang daripada 12 sebatan.

OKT tidak mengaku salah apabila pertuduhan dibacakan dan mohon untuk dibicarakan.

Setelah meneliti hujahan bertulis kedua-dua belah pihak, Mahkamah ini telah membuat penilaian maksima berdasarkan keterangan saksi pendakwaan dan bukti dokumentar dikemukakan serta persetujuan bertulis yang dibuat di bawah seksyen 172A(5) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan ditandakan Mahkamah sebagai eksibit P3, Mahkamah memutuskan pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap OKT dan OKT diarahkan untuk membela diri.

Di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah ini memutuskan OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan kerana OKT berada dalam keadaan tidak waras fikiran (unsound mind) ketika kejadian bunuh dilakukan ke atas mangsa.

6.

Pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai seorang saksi sebelum menutup kes pendakwaan yang mana saksi tersebut adalah Pegawai Penyiasat (SP1) yang memberikan keterangan melalui penyata saksi yang ditandakan sebagai PSP1.

Dalam kes ini juga, pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan persetujuan bertulis antara OKT, peguam bela OKT dan pihak pendakwaan bertarikh 3.3.2026 setelah pihak-pihak bersetuju dengan fakta dan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan, kecuali niat OKT untuk membunuh si mati.

Persetujuan bertulis tersebut telah dibuat mengikut peruntukan seksyen 172A(5) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit P3.

FAKTA YANG DIPERSETUJUI OKT di dalam kes ini adalah Normazila binti Hassan (No. K/P: 760317-08-5084) manakala si mati ialah Saadiah binti Mat Dali (No. K/P: 650614-07-5002) yang merupakan jiran kepada tertuduh.

Kejadian bunuh berlaku pada 24 Oktober 2023 jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang bertempat di F10-8-76, Jalan Permai 2/14, Taman Puchong Permai, 47150 Puchong, Selangor (rumah OKT).

Pada 24.10.2023 jam lebih kurang 3.18 petang, pengadu yang sedang bertugas di Pusat Kawalan IPD Subang Jaya telah menerima maklumat MERS 999 daripada pemanggil bernama Mohd Sayuti bin Lazim bahawa terdapat pergaduhan di blok S 10, Jalan Permai 2/14, Taman Puchong Permai. Pengadu telah mengarahkan kereta peronda ke tempat kejadian dan membuat repot pertama sebagaimana Bkt Puchong 12323/2023.

L/Kpl Sahrulnizam bin Mohamad Zulkifli bersama-sama Kpl Khairul Anuar bin Sarbini dan Kpl Mohd Fadzil bin Wahinuddin adalah anggota peronda yang diarahkan untuk ke tempat kejadian. Ketika mereka sampai di tempat kejadian, mereka telah masuk ke dalam rumah tertuduh dan melihat seorang perempuan Melayu (si mati) yang terbaring di ruang tamu rumah dalam keadaan tidak bernafas dan mempunyai darah di tangan kiri perempuan tersebut.

Anggota peronda juga telah melihat seorang perempuan Melayu (OKT) yang sedang duduk dan menangis. Baju yang dipakai oleh OKT juga mempunyai kesan darah.

Kemudian, telah datang ahli paramedik iaitu Nurirfan bin Ramlee ke tempat kejadian. Nurirfan telah ke tempat kejadian setelah menerima maklumat dari MECC Hospital Serdang yang mengarahkan beliau untuk ke tempat kejadian kerana terdapat kes kematian.

Apabila sampai di tempat kejadian, Nurirfan telah pergi kepada si mati yang terbaring di ruang tamu rumah. Nurirfan telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas si mati dan mendapati bahawa si mati dalam keadaan tidak sedar, tiada nadi, tiada pernafasan dan tanda-tanda kehidupan lalu mengisytiharkan si mati telah mati di tempat kejadian.

Semasa di tempat kejadian, terdapat dua orang lagi anggota peronda yang telah ke tempat kejadian iaitu Kpl Mohd Fahami Muslim bin Mohd Fauzi dan L/Kpl Izham. Hasil soal siasat awal anggota peronda dengan penduduk setempat yang berkumpul di tempat kejadian, anggota peronda telah ditunjukkan dengan senjata yang digunakan oleh OKT untuk membunuh si mati iaitu sebilah pisau yang terdapat di rak kasut di hadapan rumah OKT. Pisau tersebut telah ditunjukkan oleh jiran tertuduh bernama Mohd Sayuti bin Lazim. Anggota peronda telah membawa pisau tersebut masuk ke dalam rumah sebelum diserahkan kepada pegawai forensic.

Siasatan yang dijalankan oleh ASP Ganesan a/l Murugan mendapati bahawa sebelum kejadian bunuh berlaku, anak OKT bernama Nuraina Shazreen binti Shafri berada di rumah tersebut bersama datuknya (bapa OKT) sebelum kejadian bunuh berlaku. Nuraina melihat si mati sedang berbual dengan OKT di ruang tamu dalam keadaan baik. Kemudian, Nuraina telah telah masuk ke biliknya.

Selang beberapa minit, Nuraina mendengar si mati menjerit meminta tolong dan terus keluar dari biliknya untuk melihat perkara yang terjadi. Pintu bilik yang mana OKT dan si mati berada adalah dalam keadaan berkunci dan datuk Nuraina telah bertindak memecahkan pintu bilik tersebut. Nuraina dan datuknya mendapati bahawa si mati dalam keadaan berlumuran darah dan terduduk bersandar di dinding bilik kedua manakala OKT menyorok di belakang pintu bilik tersebut.

Nuraina telah pergi ke rumah jirannya untuk mendapatkan bantuan dan apabila Nuraina pulang semula ke rumahnya bersama jiranjirannya, beliau melihat datuknya sedang bergelut dengan OKT untuk menghalang OKT membunuh diri menggunakan pisau.

OKT dilihat telah menggigit tangan kiri datuk Nuraina dan OKT telah melepaskan pisau yang dipegang. Nuraina dan jiran-jirannya telah memegang OKT manakala beberapa jiran lelaki telah mengangkat keluar si mati ke ruang tamu.

Selanjutnya, Wan Nor Azah binti Abu Hassan merupakan jiran sebelah rumah OKT, yang mana Nuraina telah pergi mendapatkan bantuan. Wan Nor Azah melihat Nuraina dalam keadaan menangis yang meminta beliau untuk melihat keadaan OKT dan si mati.

Setelah sampai di rumah OKT, Wan Nor Azah melihat si mati yang duduk bersandar di dinding dalam bilik kedua rumah tersebut tetapi dalam keadaan masih bernyawa dan terdapat darah berhampiran tempat si mati duduk. Beliau juga pada masa tersebut dapat melihat OKT memegang sebilah pisau dan sedang bergelut dengan bapa OKT dalam bilik tersebut.

Melihat keadaan tersebut, Wan Nor Azah telah lari keluar dari rumah tersebut dan menjerit meminta pertolongan daripada penghuni flat yang lain. Namun, disebabkan tiada siapa yang memberanikan diri untuk mengambil pisau yang berada di tangan OKT, Wan Nor Azah sendiri telah merampas pisau tersebut dari tangan OKT dan menyorokkan pisau tersebut di rak kasut di luar rumah OKT.

Mohd Sayuti bin Lazim adalah suami kepada Wan Nor Azah. Beliau telah mengesahkan kejadian yang berlaku sebagaimana yang dinyatakan oleh Wan Nor Azah. Kemudian, beliau telah menghubungi 999 berkenaan kejadian yang berlaku kepada pegawai tersebut.

Nuraina, Hassan, Wan Nor Azah dan Mohd Sayuti telah mengecamkan pisau yang dirampas oleh pihak polis dari rak kasut sebagai pisau yang berada di tangan OKT semasa mereka melihat OKT di dalam bilik kedua di rumah OKT bersama si mati.

Si mati telah dibawa ke hospital Serdang pada jam lebih kurang 7.00 petang pada hari kejadian. Si mati telah diisytiharkan mati pada 24.10.2023 jam lebih kurang 4.00 petang.

Bedah siasat telah dilakukan oleh Dr. Emizam bin Mohamadon di Hospital Serdang pada 25.10.2023 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi. Mayat si mati telah dicamkan oleh suami si mati.

Laporan bedah siasat mendedahkan jasad si mati adalah seorang perempuan dewasa yang sudah berumur dan berbadan sederhana besar dengan ketinggian 156 cm dan berat badan antara 50 – 60 kg. Terdapat kesan koyakan menyerupai kesan tusukan objek tajam pada pakaian si mati iaitu 2 di bahagian depan baju sebelah kiri atas, 10 di bahagian belakang baju, 13 di tudung dan 2 di coli. Kaku mayat adalah dalam keadaan sempurna.

Hasil pemeriksaan luaran mendapati terdapat 7 luka tikam iaitu 2 di bahagian dada sebelah kiri, 1 di hujung bahu kiri, 1 di belakang lengan bawah tangan kanan dan 3 di belakang badan.

Terdapat juga 15 luka hiris iaitu di bahagian dadah sebelah atas, belakang telapak tangan kedua-dua belah tangan, lengan bawah tangan kanan, lengan atas tangan kiri, leher sebelah kiri dan belakang badan.

Luka-luka calar di bahu kiri, leher sebelah kanan, bawah dagu dan leher sebelah kiri serta luka lebam di sisi luar siku kiri dijumpai pada si mati.

Hasil pemeriksaan dalaman pula telah menjumpai luka tikam di dada kiri sebelah bawah menembusi otot di ruang antara tulang rusuk kiri ke 6 dan ke 7, kantung jantung sebelah depan bawah dan akhirnya memotong dan menembusi dinding jantung di bahagian puncak jantung.

Terdapat luka tikaman di dada kiri sebelah atas menembusi otot di ruang antara tulang rusuk ke 4 dan ke 5 dan memotong sedikit bahagian atas tulang rusuk ke 5, dan berakhir di lapisan lemak bahagian depan jantung.

Luka tikam di bahagian belakang badan sebelah bawah menembusi dinding abdomen bahagian belakang badan iaitu di bawah diafram kiri, memotong otot kiri dan berakhir di lapisan lemak di pangkal buah pinggang kiri.

Luka-luka tikam dan hiris yang lain adalah dangkal dan tidak menembusi organ dalaman. Terdapat 350 ml darah dan 266 gm darah beku di rongga dada sebelah kiri. Paru-paru kiri si mati mengecut.

Dr Emizam membuat rumusan bahawa punca kematian si mati adalah disebabkan oleh luka tikaman di jantung si mati.

Insp Mohamad Zamzuri bin Osman bersama-sama sepasukan polis telah pergi ke tempat kejadian pada 24.10.2023 jam lebih kurang 3.45 petang. Apabila sampai di tempat kejadian, Insp Zamzuri telah memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai polis kepada Shafri bin Mohd Shafie iaitu suami OKT.

Suami OKT telah membawa Insp Zamzuri ke dalam bilik tidur yang mana OKT berada dan Insp Zamzuri telah merampas sehelai baju tidur bercorak batik warna hitam/biru yang mempunyai kesan darah dan ditandakan sebagai F1. Insp Zamzuri juga telah menahan OKT dan membawa balik OKT dan barang rampasan ke IPD Subang Jaya.

Insp Zamzuri telah membuat laporan polis berkenaan tangkapan dan rampasan yang dilakukan sebagaimana repot Bukit Puchong 12341/2023.

Kemudian, pada 25.10.2023 jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi, Insp Zamzuri dan anggota serbuan telah ke Hospital Serdang dan menahan suami OKT untuk siasatan kes ini. Suami OKT telah menyerahkan sebuah telefon bimbit jenis Vivo 1902 berwarna hitam yang ditandakan sebagai F1. Barang rampasan telah dibawa balik ke IPD Subang Jaya dan Insp Zamzuri membuat laporan polis.

Insp G 226804 Ahmad Fabian bin Ismail yang merupakan pegawai forensic telah menyerahkan barang-barang kes kepada pegawai penyiasat.

Barang-barang kes yang diserahkan oleh pegawai forensic ini telah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia oleh Kpl RF 14760 Kannan a/l Panirsilvam dan diterima oleh ahli kimia Nurul Hamizai Abdul Hamid. Satu resit kimia bernombor makmal 23- FR-B-29149 telah disediakan oleh ahli kimia tersebut selepas penerimaan barang-barang kes ini.

Analisis DNA yang dijalankan oleh ahli kimia tersebut telah mempunyai keputusan seperti berikut:

Satu profil DNA perempuan telah diperoleh daripada kesan darah pada tuala ‘G1’, baju ‘G4’ dan putik kapas ‘G6’ yang berpadanan dengan profil DNA yang diperoleh daripada specimen darah ‘G14’ berlabel ‘Normazila binti Hassan’.

Satu profil DNA perempuan yang telah diperoleh daripada kesan darah pada putik kapas ‘G5’ yang berpadanan dengan profil DNA yag diperoleh daripada kesan darah ‘G12’ berlabel ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’.

Satu profil DNA bercampur yang terdiri daripada seorang penyumbang major dan seorang penyumbang minor telah diperoleh daripada kesan darah pada kaftan ‘G8’. Profil DNA yang diperoleh daripada specimen darah ‘G14’ (berlabel ‘Normazila binti Hassan’) dan kesan specimen darah ‘G12’ (berlabel ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’) masing-masing adalah merupakan penyumbang major dan minor kepada profil DNA bercampur tersebut.

Satu profil DNA bercampur yang terdiri daripada dua individu perempuan telah diperoleh daripada kesatan pada hulu pisau ‘G2’. Profil DNA yang diperoleh daripada kesan specimen darah ‘G12’ (berlabel ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’) dan specimen darah ‘G14’ (berlabel (‘Normazila binti Hassan’) masing-masing adalah merupakan penyumbang kepada profil DNA tersebut.

Profil DNA perempuan yang diperoleh daripada kesan darah pada beg barang kes PDRM ‘G9(b)’, kain sarung ‘G10(a)’, baju T ‘G10(b)’, tudung ‘G11(a)’, baju dalam ‘G11 (b)’ (kesemuanya milik ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’), keratan kuku ‘G13(a)’ dan ‘G13(b)’ serta rambut ‘G13(e)’ (kesemuanya milik ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’ adalah berpadanan dengan profil DNA yang diperoleh daripada kesan specimen darah ‘G12’ (berlabel ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’). Ini menunjukkan bahawa DNA yang dikenal pasti adalah daripada individu yang sama.

Profil DNA yang diperoleh daripada kesan darah pada pisau ‘G2’, kawasan ‘G3(a)’ dan ‘G3(b)’ pada karpet ‘G3’, putik kapas ‘G7’, rambut ‘G13(d)’ (berlabel ‘Saadiah binti Mat Dali’) masing-masing adalah lemah, maka tidak sesuai digunakan untuk perbandingan.

Hasil analisa ini telah dizahirkan melalui laporan kimia yang disediakan oleh Nurul Hamizai Abdul Hamid dengan nombor makmal 23-FR-B-29149 bertarikh 2.2.2024 dan diserahkan kepada pegawai penyiasat pada 27.2.2024 jam 11.10 pagi.

OKT telah dihantar untuk penilaian psikiatri di Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak atas perintah Mahkamah Majistret Shah Alam menurut seksyen 342 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ). PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI BEBAN

Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan terletak di pihak pendakwaan yang mesti membuktikan satu kes prima facie di bawah s. 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah sebelum tertuduh dipanggil membela diri bagi menjawab pertuduhan tersebut.

Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution

When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.

If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.

If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence.

For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.”

Berdasarkan prinsip mantap yang diputuskan di dalam kes Mohamad Radhi Bin Yaakob v. Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 311, Mahkamah Agong telah membuat memutuskan: "It is a well-established principle of Malaysian criminal law that the general burden of proof lies throughout the trial on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged. There is no similar burden placed on the accused to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. To earn an acquittal, his duty is merely to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. In the course of the prosecution case, the prosecution may of course rely on available statutory presumptions to prove one or more of the essential ingredients of the charge. When that occurs, the particular burden of proof as opposed to the general burden, shifts to the defence to rebut such presumptions on the balance of probabilities which from the defence point of view is heavier than the burden of casting a reasonable doubt, but it is certainly lighter than the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. To earn an acquittal at the close of the case for the prosecution under s. 173(f) or s. 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court must be satisfied that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction (Munusamy v. PP). If defence is called, the duty of the accused is only to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. He is not required to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt".

Menyentuh isu yang sama, Gopal Sri Ram HMR (pada ketika itu) di dalam kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 CLJ 734 telah menyatakan: "It therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under s. 180 of the Code has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case. He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and ask himself the question: If I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contained in the prosecution case? If the answer is in the negative then no prima facie case has been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal".

Dalam kes Balachandran v. Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 2 MLJ 301, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: "[21] Section 180(1) makes it clear that the standard of proof on the prosecution at the close of its case is to make out a prima facie case while s. 182A(1) enunciates that at the conclusion of the trial the court shall consider all the evidence adduced and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof on the prosecution at the end of its case and at the end of the whole case has thus been statutorily spelt out in clear terms. The submission made must therefore be ratiocinated against the background of the meaning of the phrase ' prima facie case ' in s. 180. Section 180(2) provides that the court shall record an order of acquittal if a prima facie case has not been made out while s. 180(3) provides that if a prima facie case has been made out the accused shall be called upon to enter his defence. A prima facie case is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal. The phrase 'prima facie case ' is defined in similar terms in Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary 11th Ed as: A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. [22]...Since the court, in ruling that a prima facie case has been made out, must be satisfied that the evidence adduced can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal it follows that if it is not rebutted it must prevail. Thus if the accused elects to remain silent he must be convicted. The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case".

Selanjutnya di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Mohd Radzi Bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut: "[8] For the guidance of the courts below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution's case:

the close of the prosecution's case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution's witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused;

(ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is 'Yes', then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is 'No' then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;

(iii) after the defence is called, the accused elects to remain silent, then convict;

(iv) after defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then go through the steps set out in Mat v. Public

Prosecutor [1963] MLJ 263.” Juga Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes MAGENDRAN MOHAN V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2011] 1 CLJ 805 telah mengulangi kedudukan undang-undang pembuktian kes prima facie dan menyatakan: "[25] The test at the end of the prosecution's case is ' prima facie case' based on a maximum evaluation of evidence. The evidence has to be scrutinized properly and not perfunctorily, cursorily or superficially. If the evaluation of the evidence results in doubts in the prosecution's case, then a prima facie case has not been made out. The defence ought not to be called merely to clear or clarify such doubts."

Berpandukan prinsip undang-undang mantap di atas, Mahkamah ini hendaklah membuat penilaian maksima keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan dokumen yang dikemukakan untuk menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie sepertimana pertuduhan.

HUJAHAN PIHAK PENDAKWAAN Di dalam kes ini, elemen-elemen yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah: i) Si mati bernama Saadiah binti Mat Dali (No. K/P: 650614-07- 5002) telah mati; ii) Si mati telah mati akibat bencana tubuh/kecederaan yang dialaminya; iii) Bencana tubuh/kecederaan yang dialami oleh si mati berpunca akibat daripada perbuatan tertuduh; dan iv) Tertuduh melakukan perbuatan tersebut dengan niat untuk menyebabkan kecederaan pada tubuh si mati dan kecederaan tersebut pada lazimnya menyebabkan kematian. Elemen-elemen kesalahan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan Elemen (i): Saadiah/mangsa telah mati.

Pengecaman ke atas mayat Saadiah telah dilakukan oleh SP1 dan suami si mati semasa di tempat kejadian dan juga di hospital. Perkara ini disokong oleh laporan post mortem Saadiah

Maka, tiada pertikaian berkenaan identiti si mati dalam kes yang dibicarakan ini. Elemen (ii): Si mati telah mati akibat bencana tubuh/kecederaan yang dialaminya.

Bagi pembuktian elemen ini, pihak pendakwaan juga percaya tiada pertikaian kerana telah dipersetujui fakta bahawa punca kematian si mati adalah kesan luka tikaman pada jantung sebagaimana yang dilaporkan oleh pegawai perubatan, Dr. Emizam. Elemen (iii): Bencana tubuh/kecederaan yang dialami oleh si mati adalah akibat perbuatan tertuduh.

Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bagi keterangan ini juga, berdasarkan siasatan oleh SP1 terhadap saksi-saksi di tempat kejadian, hanya OKT dan si mati sahaja yang berada dalam bilik tersebut dan OKT dilihat memegang pisau (P28) yang mempunyai darah.

Terdapat juga DNA si mati dan OKT pada hulu pisau tersebut.

Kecederaan yang dialami oleh si mati adalah berpadanan dengan pisau yang dijumpai di rumah OKT. Oleh hal yang demikian, tiada inferens lain yang boleh dibuat melainkan OKT yang telah menyebabkan bencana tubuh kepada si mati sehingga menyebabkan kematian si mati. Elemen (IV): Tertuduh melakukan perbuatan tersebut dengan niat untuk menyebabkan kecederaan pada tubuh si mati dan kecederaan tersebut pada lazimnya menyebabkan kematian.

Di dalam kes PP v. Megat Sharizat Megat Shahrur [2011] 8 CLJ 893, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah membuat perbezaan di antara Seksyen 299 dan Seksyen 300 Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut: “[13] The basic issue therefore is on the difference between ss. 299 and 300 of the Penal Code. In our view the difference is thin but detectable. The difference is in the degree of probability or likelihood of causing death. This is what was said in Tham Kai Yau & Ors v. PP [1976] 1 LNS 159; [1977] 1 MLJ 174 at p. 176: Section 299, Penal Code enacts that a person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done: (a) with the intention to cause death; (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 300, Penal Code defines murder as follows. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done: (1) with the intention of causing death;

with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; (3) with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person, and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;

with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The words which I have italized show the marked differences between the two offences. Where there is an intention to kill, as in (a) and (1), the offence is always murder. Where there is no intention to cause death or bodily injury, then (c) and (4) apply. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide; if it is the most probable result, it is murder. Illustration (d) of section 300, Penal Code is a case of this description. Where the offender knows that the particular person injured is likely, either from peculiarity of constitution, immature age, or other special circumstances, to be killed by an injury which would not ordinarily cause death, it is murder. Illustration (b) of section 300, Penal Code is a good example. The essence of (b) and (3) is this. It is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Illustration (c) given in section 300, Penal Code is an example. It is on a comparison of these two limbs of section 299 and section 300 that the decision of doubtful cases as the present must generally depend. The distinction is fine, but noticeable. In the last analysis, it is a question of degree of probability. A comparison that frequently arises in the application of sections 299 and 300 is the tenuous contention that section 299 is not a substantive offence and therefore an offence is either murder or culpable homicide according to whether or not one of the exceptions to section 300 apply, and if by reason of the absence of the necessary degree of mens rea an offence does not fall within section 300, it cannot be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, Penal Code, but would amount to causing grievous hurt. In our view, the correct approach to the application of the two sections is this. Section 299 clearly defines the offence of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide may not amount to murder

where the evidence is sufficient to constitute murder, but one or more of the exceptions to section 300, Penal Code apply, and (b) where the necessary degree of mens rea specified in section 299 is present, but not the special degrees of mens rea referred to in section 300, Penal Code. We would like in this connection to express the need to bear in mind that all cases falling within section 300, Penal Code must necessarily fall within section 299, but all cases falling within section 299 do not necessarily fall within section 300. The first part of section 304, Penal Code covers cases which by reason of the exceptions are taken out of the purview of section 300, clauses (1), (2) and (3) but otherwise would fall within it and also cases which fall within the second part of section 299, but not within section 300, clauses (2) and

(3). The second part of section 304, Penal Code covers cases falling within the third part of section 299 not falling within section 300, clause (4). [14] Thus, if death is an imminent result, it falls under s.

If on the other hand, that death is a likely result, it falls under s. 299. It would be safe to conclude that all cases under s. 300 would fall under s. 299 as well, but this is not necessarily so vice versa.”

Pihak pendakwaan menggunakan seksyen 300 (c) Kanun Keseksaan dan menyatakan bahawa terdapat elemen niat daripada OKT untuk menyebabkan bencana tubuh atau kecederaan pada si mati dan kecederaan tersebut pada lazimnya menyebabkan kematian si mati.

Pihak pendakwaan merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan Mahadzir Bin Yusof & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2011] 1 MLJ 297 yang mana YA Zainun Ali HMR menyatakan seperti berikut: Clause (c) [84] It is settled law that when considering s 300(c) of the Penal Code, the court must decide four matters, namely:

what was the bodily injury that was present;

what was the nature of the injury;

was the injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; and

did the accused intentionally cause the injury. [85] The items (a)–(c) are all objective inquiries whilst item (d) is a subjective inquiry. [86] Items (a)–(c) have been discussed above. The deceased sustained injuries most prominently on the head. These injuries are fatal injuries (evidence of PW14) and caused by the wooden baseball bat. [87] After having considered the issues in items (a)–

above, the court then had to consider whether the appellants had the intention to inflict the fatal injuries that were inflicted on the deceased’s body. In considering whether there was an intention to inflict the injuries, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines for example as to whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot on the deceased’s body and whether there was sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. If there is no such intention on the part of the accused and his accomplice, then why did he to deliberately hit the deceased on two fatal areas that are the head and the chest? Such deliberation is one of an irresistible conclusion which must be drawn to such an intention. [88] From the facts and evidence before us, it is clear that the appellants had intentionally caused the fatal injuries on the dangerous or vital spot of the deceased’s body. Thus, cl (c) to s 300 of the Penal Code had been fulfilled. [89] The appellants knew that the injuries inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death, more particularly, causing fatal injuries to the vital part of the body, ie the head. There is also evidence to show that the deceased suffered multiple injuries over his body.”

Selain itu, dalam satu lagi kes Mahkamah Rayuan Chan Kwee Fong v Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 MLJ 441, YA Abdul Malik Ishak HMR telah memutuskan seperti berikut: [81] Now, from the evidence of SP4 and SP7 which we have earlier set out in some detail, the presence of those bodily injuries on the deceased and the nature of those injuries must surely satisfy the first and the second elements of s 300(c) of the Penal Code as set out by V Bose J in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab. This meant that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing these two elements. [82] The third element of s 300(c) of the Penal Code expounded by V Bose J in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, requires proof that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injuries on the deceased — whether or not it was not accidental or unintentional. This is where the test laid down by V Bose J in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab as reproduced earlier plays a prominent part. And the evidence of SP8, SP9 and SP7 as reproduced earlier would provide the necessary answer. A narration of the pertinent facts must be made here, once again. SP8’s evidence proved that the aggressor was the accused. According to SP8 it was the accused who had approached the deceased and punched the deceased twice. The accused then stabbed the deceased. At that point of time, the accused was facing the deceased and they were about two feet apart. The stabs inflicted by the accused must have landed on the front part of the deceased’s body particularly at the chest and the abdomen. And this was confirmed by SP7. According to the good doctor —SP7, the first, the second and the third stab wounds were all located at the front part of the deceased’s body. [83] According to SP8, the deceased ran to the rear after being stabbed. The accused gave chase and caught up with the deceased. It was at this point of time that the accused stabbed the deceased from the back. We agree with the High Court that this constituted the fourth stab wound which was located on the back of the deceased’s left buttock. And according to SP7, the stab wound had penetrated about 7cm inwards causing part of the pubic ramus bone and the main artery known medically as the internal iliac artery on the left to be cut thereby causing excessive bleeding which gave rise to hypovolaemic shock leading to the death of the deceased. [84] In our judgment, on the evidence, there is no doubt that the accused had intended to inflict the injuries found on the deceased’s body. We were satisfied, based on the evidence of SP7, that the second stab wound and the fourth stab wound inflicted on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our judgment, we are satisfied that the prosecution had proved that the act of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was done with the intention of causing bodily injuries on the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death within the meaning of s 300(c) of the Penal Code. [85] The written judgment of the High Court was impeccable: a model of precision and comprehensiveness and we cannot find any fault with it. The serious injuries suffered by the deceased particularly with the severance of the main artery, was ample evidence of an intention to kill.

Berdasarkan kepada prinsip-prinsip kes di atas, pihak pendakwaan hujahkan bahawa OKT sememangnya berniat untuk melakukan bencana tubuh ke atas si mati dan kecederaan yang dialami hasil daripada perbuatan OKT secara lazimnya telah menyebabkan kematian si mati.

Manakala pihak pembelaan menghujahkan dengan penerimaan oleh Mahkamah akan pengakuan fakta menurut seksyen 172A(5) KTJ, Mahkamah ini bolehlah menerimapakai fakta-fakta kejadian yang diakui OKT sepertimana eksibit P3 bahawa OKT telah menyebabkan kecederaan, yang mana dalam keadaan biasa menyebabkan kematian terhadap mangsa. Dalam erti kata lain, OKT telah melakukan perbuatan sepertimana pertuduhan.

OKT hanya tidak mengakui bahawa OKT mempunyai niat untuk membunuh mangsa. Berdasarkan keterangan SP1, OKT telah membangkitkan pembelaannya bahawa OKT tidak sedar dan tidak waras semasa kejadian. Fakta ini dikemukakan pihak pembelaan at the earliest opportunity sepertimana rakaman percakapan OKT yang diambil SP1.

Pihak pembelaan menghujahkan Mahkamah ini hendaklah mempertimbangkan sama ada terdapat elemen mens rea iaitu sama ada OKT mempunyai niat untuk membunuh atau mengetahui bahawa tindakannya itu boleh mendatangkan kematian atau kecederaan yang boleh membawa kematian kepada mangsa.

Pihak pembelaan juga telah membangkitkan pembelaan insanity menurut seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan.

Lanjutan itu, beban pembuktian adalah ke atas pihak pembelaan untuk membuktikan ketidakwarasan menurut seksyen 105 Akta Keterangan 1950. Rujuk juga laporan perubatan IDD42.

Mahkamah ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dan Peguambela yang bijaksana yang mana telah memberikan kerjasama sepenuhnya sepertimana diarahkan Mahkamah memandangkan kes ini telah dijadikan kes “fast track”.

Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan:

“Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death” Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan barang siapa melakukan kesalahan membunuh orang hendaklah dihukum mati.

Seksyen 300 menggariskan hal-hal keadaan yang dikatakan seseorang itu telah melakukan kesalahan membunuh orang iaitu, “Murder

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—

if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death;

if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;

if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or

if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.”

Berdasarkan kepada hujahan pihak pembelaan, adalah dipersetujui bahawa Mahkamah ini sewajarnya mengambil pendekatan yang sama sepertimana diputuskan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP v Mohd Rozaini Yahaya [2025] 2 CLJ 2 yang mana OKT hendaklah membuktikan pembelaan bahawa OKT tidak waras semasa melakukan pembunuhan ke atas mangsa.

Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “(1) When the defence of insanity was raised, there was a two-stage process before the defence of legal insanity was available to an accused. Firstly, there must be a finding that the accused was medically insane at the time when he committed the alleged offence. This was based on a medical evaluation and lay with the medical expert to determine. This was not conclusive to qualify the accused as being legally insane. To determine whether the accused was legally insane, one must proceed to the second stage, namely, whether the accused, by reason of his psychiatric condition, had lost his cognitive faculties to a degree that he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. This stage was for the Court to determine from the evidence adduced at trial. This was in line with the ingredients listed under s 84 of the Code. (para 46) The trial Judge found that the prosecution's witnesses themselves indicated that the accused had mental health problems due to substance abuse, and this was held by the trial Judge as sufficient to establish a defence under s 85(2)(b) of the Code. However, the trial Judge failed to give a sufficient judicial appreciation of the facts to support the said defence, which led to serious misdirection. In the present appeal, there was no scientific evidence to support the contention that the respondent was intoxicated, having considered his conduct before and after the commission of the crime from the testimony of the appellant's witnesses. As the defence was not called, there was no evidence from the respondent to show that by reason of the drug intoxication, he was temporarily insane at the time he committed the offence. (paras 59 & 64) In acquitting the respondent at the end of the prosecution's case, the trial Judge and the panel of Judges in the Court of Appeal had clearly made numerous erroneous determinations. Firstly, it was certainly a flaw to support the finding of insanity that qualified as a defence under s 84 of the Code by the two Courts below based on the opinion of a police officer who was familiar with the accused, while rejecting the medical evidence of the forensic consultant in psychiatry in Hospital Bahagia, Ulu Kinta. Secondly, after having found that the appellant had established a prima facie case as charged, it was incumbent for the trial Judge to call for the respondent to enter his defence. It was premature for the trial Judge to acquit the respondent at the end of the prosecution's case solely based on medical evidence, as that was not a complete defence in law as envisaged under s 84 or s 85(2)(b) of the Code. The trial Judge should have continued with the trial and heard the defence's version. It was certainly premature for the trial Judge at the end of the prosecution's case to determine whether or not the respondent was of unsound mind when he committed the offence, as the onus of proving the defence on a balance of probabilities was on the respondent at the defence stage of the trial. Having found that the offence of murder had been established by the prosecution, it was incumbent upon the trial Judge to direct the respondent to state his defence. By failing to do so, the trial Judge had fallen into a serious error of law, repeated by the Court of Appeal, which warranted appellate intervention. (paras 65-67) The Court of Appeal erred when it chose not to follow PP v. Lim Poo Teck, which established that acquittals should not occur prematurely solely based on medical testimony without hearing the defence. Legal insanity had to be proven by the defence before the defence of insanity under s 84 of the Code applied. Acquitting the respondent before defence was called was acquitting the respondent before the defence of legal insanity (be it under s 84 or s 85(2) (b) of the Code) was proven, which was a serious error of law. (para 73).” (penekanan diberikan)

Berdasarkan kepada di atas, dan setelah Mahkamah ini membuat penilaian maksima atas keterangan secara langsung dan mengikut keadaan yang telah dikemukakan, ia secara kumulatifnya menjurus ke arah hanya satu inferens dan konklusi sahaja iaitu tertuduh adalah orang yang bertanggungjawab terhadap kematian si mati menggunakan sebilah pisau.

OKT dengan sengaja telah mencederakan si mati dan kecederaan tersebut secara lazimnya telah menyebabkan kematian si mati.

Mahkamah ini memutuskan pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kesemua intipati pertuduhan dan OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri atas pertuduhan terhadapnya.

DI PERINGKAT PEMBELAAN Pihak pembelaan telah mengemukakan 3 orang saksi seperti berikut:- SAKSI NAMA SAKSI PERANAN SD1 Normazila binti Hassan OKT SD2 Nur Aina Shazreen binti Shafri Anak perempuan kandung OKT yang berada di rumah tempat kejadian pada masa kejadian. SD3 Dr. Isabel Shamini David Pakar Psikiatri, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta yang membuat pemeriksaan forensik psikiatri ke atas

Pihak pembelaan telah mengemukakan eksibit-eksibit pembelaan dan telah ditandakan seperti berikut :- Tandaan Ekshibit Keterangan Ekshibit Nota Pihak Pembelaan D42 “Laporan Perubatan Forensik Psikiatri ke atas Normazila binti Hassan” yang disediakan oleh Dr. Isabel Shamini David, Pakar Psikiatri daripada Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta bertarikh 23 Januari 2024. Laporan pakar yang menunjukkan dan mengesahkan bahawa OKT was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence. D43 Mesej WhatsApp di antara OKT dengan anaknya. NURSHAZLEEN BINTI SHAFRI (NO. K/P: 990319-08-5102) 17 OGOS 2023 19 OGOS 2023 19 0GOS 2023 (2) 23 OGOS 2023 01 SEPTEMBER 2023 08 SEPTEMBER 2023 08 SEPTEMBER 2023 (2) 09 SEPTEMBER 2023 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 15 SEPTEMBER 2023 20 SEPTEMBER 2023 23 SEPTEMBER 2023 04 OKTOBER 2023 08 OKTOBER 2023 08 OKTOBER 2023 (2) Mesej-mesej menunjukkan OKT berada dalam keadaan takut, OKT ingin mati, OKT susah hati, pesanan kepada anak-anak sekiranya OKT mati kelak, OKT memohon maaf, OKT minta anak-anak mendoakannya, sedekahkan Al- 12 OKTOBER 2023 24 OKTOBER 2023 24 OKTOBER 2023 (2) Fatihah dan melawat kuburnya, OKT minta ampun dan halalkan makan minumnya. Pada hari kejadian (24 Oktober 2023), OKT menulis pada jam 11.50 pagi, “kakak mak nmpak hantu”. D44 Mesej WhatsApp di antara OKT dengan anaknya. MUHD SHAZWAN BIN SHAFRI (NO. K/P: 020419-10-0915) 22 OGOS 2023 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 09 OKTOBER 2023 Mesej-mesej menunjukkan OKT meminta anak lelakinya menjaga adik-beradik dan ayah sekiranya OKT mati, OKT memberi wasiat jangan jual barang-barang rumah, OKT mohon maaf, OKT minta jangan buka aib OKT, OKT menyatakan ajal menghampiri dan minta mandikan jenazahnya. D45 Mesej WhatsApp di antara OKT dengan anaknya. INTAN NUR SHAZWANI BINTI (NO. K/P: 050104-16-0136) 9 OKTOBER 2023 13 OKTOBER 2023 23 OKTOBER 2023 Mesej-mesej menunjukkan OKT meminta kemas rumah cantik-cantik selepas OKT tiada, OKT menyatakan hendak pergi jauh, OKT minta jaga adik-adik, OKT mohon maaf, OKT pesan jaga diri baik-baik. D46 Mesej WhatsApp di antara OKT dengan anaknya. NUR AINA SHAZREEN BINTI (NO. K/P: 070616-10-1162) 01 OKTOBER 2023 09 OKTOBER 2023 Mesej-mesej menunjukkan OKT hendak membunuh diri, “datang la sni cepat, sblom mak bunuh diri”. D47 Mesej WhatsApp di antara OKT dengan anaknya. NUR AIN SHAZRYNA BINTI Mesej-mesej menunjukkan OKT meminta maaf, OKT menyatakan sayangnya kepada (NO. K/P: 090612-10-0638) 22 OGOS 2023 03 OKTOBER 2023 13 OKTOBER 2023 23 OKTOBER 2023 adik, OKT minta jaga diri, OKT minta “adik ingt mak Smpai mak mati”. D48 Perakuan di bawah Seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 bagi cetakan tangkap layar (screenshots) mesej-mesej WhatsApp.

Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa tindakan ataupun perbuatan OKT telah menyebabkan kecederaan, yang mana dalam keadaan biasa menyebabkan kematian terhadap mangsa. Adalah diakui bahawa OKT memang melakukan perbuatan bunuh (actus reus) sepertimana di dalam pertuduhan.

Namun satu-satunya fakta yang tidak dipersetujui oleh OKT dan dinyatakan dalam Ekshibit P3 ialah OKT tidak bersetuju bahawa OKT mempunyai niat (mens rea) untuk membunuh si mati.

Berdasarkan keterangan SP1, OKT telah menyatakan pembelaannya bahawa OKT berada dalam keadaan tidak sedar dan/atau tidak waras semasa kejadian bunuh berlaku. Fakta ini telah disampaikan oleh OKT at the earliest opportunity, iaitu 3 hari selepas kejadian berlaku, ketika keterangan OKT direkodkan oleh IO. Pada waktu itu OKT berada di Hospital Serdang selepas OKT selesai menjalani pembedahan akibat kecederaan tikaman pada perutnya.

Meskipun perbuatan (actus reus) membunuh telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini hendaklah mempertimbangkan mengenai elemen niat (mens rea), iaitu persoalan sama ada OKT mempunyai niat untuk membunuh atau mengetahui bahawa tindakannya itu boleh mendatangkan kematian atau kecederaan yang boleh membawa kepada kematian. ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH DI

PEMBELAAN Sepertimana diputuskan di peringkat pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah menerima pengakuan fakta oleh OKT dan pihak pendakwaan tidak perlu memanggil saksi-saksi untuk memberi keterangan di mahkamah bagi membuktikan fakta-fakta tersebut.

Selain daripada keterangan saksi-saksi pembelaan SD1 (OKT) dan SD2 (anak OKT yang merupakan saksi mata), apa yang kritikal kepada Mahkamah adalah laporan perubatan eksibit D42 yang disediakan oleh doktor pakar (SD3). Mahkamah ini mendapati SD3 telah membuat rumusan berdasarkan kepada analisa beliau terhadap OKT seperti berikut: “She was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence. The overwhelming psychotic symptoms experienced by the accused caused severe impairments in cognitive functions, rendering her incapable of appreciating the nature and wrongfulness of her actions.”

Mengambil pendekatan yang sama sepertimana diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya [2025] 2 CLJ 21 dan menggunapakai peruntukan seksyen 347 dan 348 KTJ, Mahkamah ini memutuskan OKT dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan kerana OKT berada dalam keadaan tidak waras fikiran (unsound mind) ketika kejadian bunuh dilakukan ke atas mangsa.

96.