Case review :

Public Prosecutor v Norazam bin Ibrahim [2006] 8 CLJ 462

High Court of Malaya, Melaka
17 November 2005

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The accused, Norazam bin Ibrahim met with the deceased named as Tan Kuo Seng,
accompanied by his friend, for the repayment of the loan made by the accused. In the
deceaseds car, the deceased demanded for full payment for the week from the accused but
the accused could not do so. He even asked the deceased to give loan to his friend as well but
the deceased ignored him. They had an altercation in which the deceased hurled abusive
words against the accuseds parents and sister. The accused asked the deceased to stop from
doing so but the deceased held the accuseds shirt. According to the accuseds friend who was
also in the car at that time, the deceased had uttered the following words to the accused; mak
engkau punya puki, bapak engkau punya sial which roughly translated as your mothers
cunt, your fathers ill omen or misfortune. Apart from that, the deceased also called the
accused as babi pig. Later, the accused took the knife from his pouch which he had
brought earlier and stabbed the deceased. The deceased fell into a drain in his attempt to leave
the place, but was then chased by the accused by the deceaseds car. The deceased managed
to run nearby to the eyewitness house where there, he witnessed the accused hurled a piece
of wood and landed right on the deceaseds head. In the deceaseds attempt to run again, the
accused hurled a piece of rock at the deceased which also landed on the deceaseds head. The
deceased collapsed and never regained consciousness again.
Due to those acts, the accused was charged against the Penal Code in Section 300
under the offence of murder. From the prosecutor, it was submitted that there was evidence of
the accuseds intention of causing the bodily injury to the deceased and that the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as
stated under Section 300 (c) of the Penal Code. In their argument, in order to reduce the
charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the accused and the
defence counsel relied on the defence of grave and sudden provocation, exception 1 of
Section 300. According to Section 302, the punishment for murder shall be hanged to death.
It was also submitted that another defence available for the accused is as under exception 4
of Section 300, as there was sudden fight between the accused and the deceased prior to the
incident.

ISSUES :
1. Whether the accuseds intention of causing bodily injury may be gathered from his
combined act of inflicting head and body with a knife, a piece of wood and a rock
sequentially.
2. Whether mens rea for murder may be gathered from indirect evidence by reference to
facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Whether provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent offence from
amounting to murder and whether the use of abusive and insulting language may
amount to grave and sudden provocation.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
The legal rule or principle that derived from this case is that in order to distinguish
murder and culpable homicide, one must look at the intention of the doer. According to
Section 299, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide. Whereas under Section 300, culpable homicide is murder if (a) the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; (b) it is done with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of
the person to whom the harm is caused; (c) is it 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 (d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that in 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. For example, in this case, it was held that from the accused act of causing such
bodily injury by inflicting head and body with knife, piece of wood and a rock is sufficient to
prove that such act were done with the existence of mens rea.
As for mens rea, as in the sense of intention or knowledge, is not capable of being
established by way of direct evidence. It has to be gathered from indirect evidence by
reference to every facts and circumstances of the case. In regard to this case, the mens rea or
the intention of the accused must be established through the accuseds act as a whole,
including the act of causing bodily injury by inflicting head and body with knife, piece of
wood and a rock. These acts had fall within the ambit of Section 300 (a), (b), (c) or (d).

Apart from that, this case also shows that it is important to prove that as to whether
such provocation was sudden and grave enough to prevent it from amounting to murder.
Exception 1 of Section 300 states that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation or any other person by accident. However, this exception is
subject to provisions which are, the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender as an excuse for killing and doing harm to any person, the provocation is not given
by anything done in obedience to the law or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the
powers and the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the rights
of private defence. In this case, the deceased was alleged to have provoked the accused with
abusive and insulting words against the accuseds parents and sister. The judgements in this
case followed the case of Ikau Anak Mail v PP and N Govindasamy v PP where both
decided that abusive and insulting words are insufficient to amount to grave and sudden
provocation, which also means, it does not sudden and grave enough to prevent it from
amounting to murder.