Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Khairuanuar bin Baharuddin and another appeal [2024] 6 MLJ 397

 Federal Court (Putrajaya)

 Criminal Law — Murder — Whether ingredients of charge proven

1. The Respondent was the stepfather of a 26-month-old girl who died on 6 November 2015 while under his exclusive care at his residence, Wangsa Maju. In October 2015, the Respondent had insisted that the child be sent to him daily and pressured the child’s mother (PW7) to allow him to care for the child alone. Prior to the incident, the child’s father (PW1) and stepmother (PW2) had observed multiple bruises on the child’s body, and when asked, the child identified the Respondent as the person who caused the injuries. PW1 and PW2 advised PW7 to lodge a police report, but PW7 declined.
2. On the morning of the incident, the Respondent returned home and woke PW8, his driver, at around 7.30am. A short time later, PW8 heard the child screaming from the master bedroom where only the child and the Respondent were present. At approximately 5.30pm, when PW8 was called into the room, he found the child lying motionless on the floor with blue lips, while the Respondent stood nearby. PW8 asked the Respondent to call an ambulance, but the Respondent refused, stating he would be “finished” if he did so. Instead, the Respondent carried the child out of the house through the back door and instructed PW8 to drive him to a clinic. At the clinic, the Respondent falsely introduced himself as a police officer and asked the doctor to issue a death certificate. The doctor refused and directed him to a hospital.
3. The child was pronounced dead shortly after. A full post-mortem examination conducted at Hospital Kuala Lumpur revealed 29 external injuries of varying ages, including bruises, abrasions, and contusions across the child’s body. The post-mortem further showed fatal blunt force trauma to the head, resulting in a skull fracture, subdural haemorrhage, and brain swelling. The pathologist concluded the injuries were non-accidental and consistent with repeated forceful impact. Following the post-mortem, the Respondent attempted to persuade PW7 to seek help from a doctor friend to alter the post-mortem findings.
4. The Respondent was charged in the High Court under section 302 of the Penal Code for murder. After a full trial, the High Court convicted him and imposed the mandatory death sentence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal substituted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under paragraph 304(b) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. The Public Prosecutor appealed to the Federal Court while the Respondent filed a cross-appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully established the elements of murder under paragraph 300(c) of the Penal Code, particularly whether intention could be inferred from the circumstances and whether the injuries inflicted on the child were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?

(1)  Whether the prosecution had successfully established the elements of murder under paragraph 300(c) of the Penal Code, particularly whether intention could be inferred from the circumstances and whether the injuries inflicted on the child were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that the High Court was correct to convict the Respondent of murder because the evidence clearly supported an inference of intention, and the medical findings demonstrated that the injuries were fatal within the meaning of paragraph 300(c) of the Penal Code.

(b) The Federal Court held –

“Intention is a matter of fact to be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances, and need not be proved by direct evidence.” (para [32])

(c)  The Court explained that intention may be properly inferred where an Accused is the last person seen with the victim, where the injuries are non-accidental, and where subsequent conduct reflects consciousness of guilt. In this case, the Respondent’s behaviour including being alone with the child when she screamed, attempting to avoid hospital procedures, requesting a death certificate, and trying to influence the post-mortem process cumulatively pointed to intentional infliction of harm.

(d) The Federal Court further held that the medical evidence met the statutory threshold for murder under paragraph 300(c) of the Penal Code –

“The head injuries, including a skull fracture, subdural haemorrhage and brain swelling were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.” (paras [39]–[42])

(e)  The Court emphasised that where injuries are of such a nature that death would ordinarily result, the legal requirement of paragraph 300(c) is fulfilled, and the absence of premeditation is irrelevant to the determination of liability.

(f)   The Court also rejected the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that lack of premeditation reduced the offence to culpable homicide. The Federal Court clarified that –

“Premeditation is not an element of murder under section 300(c), and only arises as a consideration within the statutory exceptions under section 300.” (paras [45]–[49])

(g) The Court explained that unless the defence can successfully invoke an exception — such as sudden fight or grave provocation — the absence of planning cannot diminish the offence from murder to culpable homicide.

(h)  The Federal Court also held that an alibi must place the accused away from the scene of the offence in a meaningful way, and where evidence shows the accused remained present throughout, the alibi collapses.

(i)    The Federal Court explained –

“The respondent’s alibi was untenable as the evidence clearly placed him at home during the entire material time.” (paras [53]–[56])

(j)    Accordingly, the Federal Court concluded that all the ingredients of murder under paragraph 300(c) of the Penal Code were satisfied. The intentional nature of the acts could be inferred, the injuries were fatal by medical standards, no exceptions applied, and the Respondent’s alibi was unsustainable.

1. The Federal Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal, dismissed the Respondent’s appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, and restored the High Court’s conviction for murder under section 302 of the Penal Code.

1. Intention for murder can be inferred from conduct and circumstances, no need for direct proof.
2. Medical evidence is crucial to show injuries were sufficient to cause death under paragraph 300(c) of the Penal Code.
3. Premeditation is NOT required to prove murder under section 302 of the Penal Code unless an exception is invoked.