Sathiaraj Kundaiah v. PP [2024] MLRAU 70

Court of Appeal, Putrajaya

Penal Code – Sections 302 of Penal Code [“Act 574”] – Murder

1.    On 19 September 2019, the Appellant was seen loitering outside the PKNS flats in Ampang, where the Deceased lived with her son.

2.    The Appellant noticed the Deceased walking alone and followed her into her flat. He then proceeded to tie the Deceased’s hands behind her back, shoved a cloth firmly into her throat to prevent her from screaming, and wrapped two shirts tightly around her lips.  One blouse had covered her nose.

3.    The Appellant had raped and sodomised the Deceased.  He then left the Appellant’s flat after he took some cash and gold chain.

4.    The Deceased’s son returned home to find his mother dead with the face down on the bed, bound and gagged.  He then called the Police and the Police cordoned off the crime scene.

5.    The Appellant went to a pawn shop in Ampang to pawn the gold chain with the help of a lorry driver as he did not bring his identity card along.  He told the lorry driver that he needs the money as his child is sick at home.

6.    On 9 October 2019, the Appellant was arrested at his sister’s house in Bandar Puchong Jaya as the Police obtained a CCTV footage from one of the residents at the PKNS flats.

7.    The medical report established that the Deceased had died from suffocation and there were 31 injuries found on the Deceased body.

8.    The High Court Judge held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the Appellant called upon him to make his defence.

9.    As a defence, the Appellant claimed that he had taken drugs, which caused him to be insane at the time the offense was committed.

10.  The learned trial Judge rejected the Appellant’s defence of drug intoxication under section 85 and held that even though he consumed drugs during the commission of the offence, he was coherent and aware of his actions during the crime.  The evidence showed that he knew what he was doing, including using a gag to silence the Deceased.

11.  Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence by the High Court Judge, the Appellant proceeded to appeal to the Court of Appeal for two main reasons such as follows:

(a)      First, it was clear that the trial judge had from the onset reason to suspect the Appellant was of unsound mind as he had pursuant to section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code referred him to a government psychiatrist for observation and the trial only proceeded when he was certified fit to stand trial; and

(b)      Second, the admissions made by the Appellant’s in his section 112 statement and evidence in court pointed to insanity.

1.    Whether the trial Judge failed to consider the defence of insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code 

(a)     The Court held that there is a distinction between insanity or unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Penal Code and insanity due to intoxication under Section 85.   To further clarify, section 84, 85 and 86 are as follows:

“Section 84

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.”

“Section 85

(1)    Save as provided in this section and in s 86, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge.

(2)    Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and-

(a) The state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or

(b) The person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.”

“Section 86

(1)    Where the defence under subsection 85(2) is established, then in a case falling under paragraph (a) thereof the accused person shall be acquitted, and in a case falling under paragraph (b), the provisions of s 84 of this Code, s 347 and 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593] shall apply.

(2)    Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention, specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence.

(3)    For the purpose of this and the preceding section intoxication” shall be deemed to include a state produced by narcotics or drugs.”

(b)      The Court held that in order to use the defence of insanity under section 84, the Accused must demonstrate that his inability to understand the nature of his actions or recognize that what he was doing was wrong was due to a permanent mental illness or defect.  The burden of proving this defence lies with the Accused.  The Court shall presume that the Accused is mentally sound until it is proven contrary to the above section.

(c)      The Court further held that this defence is not applicable to the Appellant since there is no evidence of a mental disorder, illness or defect at the time of the incident.  By referring to the case of Ibrahim bin Mohd v. Public Prosecutor [2012] MLRAU 597; [2013] 1 MLJ 768 which held as follows:

“The accused had given evidence on oath, by reading out a handwritten statement which was admitted as exh D1. In exh D1, the accused admitted killing the deceased, by carrying out ‘God’s mission’, based on the dreams that he had and other phenomena as guidance from God. No other evidence was adduced for the accused either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or the examination-in-chief of the accused himself. The accused raised the issue of unsoundness of mind before the trial judge only in the course of his submission. The trial judge rejected the defence as he found that the accused was well aware of what he was doing when he plunged the knife into the deceased’s chest and convicted him. The accused then appealed.”

(d)      The Court held that the defence by the Appellant need not be considered, as the issue of unsoundness of mind was only raised in the submission.  As such, the lack of evidences was not sufficient enough for the Court to accept the defence.

(e)      The Court referred to the case of Public Prosecutor v. Misbah bin Saat [1997] 4 MLRH 253; [1997] 3 MLJ 495; [1998] 1 CLJ 759 (supra), the High Court held that neither the prosecution nor Judge could raise the issue of insanity in s 84, if the Accused has not raised the issue as a defence. In this regard, it was observed that-

“It should further be pointed out that the principle that only the accused has the right to raise the defence of insanity if he so wishes is so well-recognized that it has been held that neither the prosecution nor the judge could raise the issue of insanity during a trial, if the accused had not himself raised this defence. In R v. Dickie [1984] 3 All ER 173, the English Court of Appeal pointed out at p 178. … we can find no precedent on Ih we should be Inclined to rely for assuming that the prosecution has such a right. The prosecution has a positive duty to prove if it can the allegation which it makes on the indictment. It has the power if the issue is raised by the defence to rebut by its own evidence the attempt by the defence to establish insanity. It has the obligation, if it has evidence in its possession of insanity which will assist the defence to establish that the defendant was in that condition when the crime was committed, to make that evidence available to the defence in good time, so that in its discretion it may make proper use of it.”

(f)        The Court agreed with the High Court Judge’s conclusion that the Appellant’s claim of legal insanity at the time of the offense lacked of merit.  It was undisputed that the Appellant had consumed drugs before the incident. Although he was under the influence, he was aware of his surroundings and understood his actions, as evidenced by his own testimony.

(g)      The evidence showed that his ability to form intent was intact, and there was no indication of drug-induced psychosis.  Therefore, the trial Judge correctly found the Appellant guilty of the charge.

The Appellant’s appeal were dismissed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.

1.      The Court highlighted a distinction between insanity due to unsoundness of mind (section 84) and insanity due to intoxication (section 85).  To apply section 84, the accused must prove a permanent mental illness or defect affecting his understanding of the nature of his actions.