IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. Q-05-85-2005
IBRAHIM BIN MOHAMAD … APPELLANT
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND … RESPONDENT
[In the matter of Criminal Trial No. 45-03-2003 (MR) In the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak at Miri]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BETWEEN … COMPLAINANT AND
IBRAHIM BIN MOHAMAD . ACCUSED
LOW HOP BING, JCA CLEMENT ALLAN SKINNER, JCA LINTON ALBERT, JCA
LOW HOP BING, JCA
(DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT)
 The Miri High Court had rejected the defence of unsoundness of mind and found the Appellant (“the Accused”) guilty of committing murder under s.302 of the Penal Code by causing the death of one Ikhsan bin Mustapha at Masjid al Taqwa Merpati in Miri and imposed the mandatory death sentence. We had dismissed the Accused’s appeal. Our grounds are set out below.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
 Upon maximum evaluation of the evidence adduced for the prosecution, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the Accused.
 In his defence, the Accused elected to give evidence on oath, by reading out a 14-page handwritten statement which was admitted as Exhibit D1.
 In Exhibit 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. He came face to face (the word used by the Accused was ‘terserempak’) with a conspiracy within the mosque involving several ‘imams’ or religious leaders.
 The ‘God’s mission’ is the Accused’s perceived sacred duty to defend and preserve the correct teachings of Islam; and the ‘conspiracy’ was perceived by the Accused to have been committed by the ‘imams’ to deride the religion of Islam.
 The Accused perceived his role as a faithful defender of Islam.
 The Accused thought and was convinced that the deceased could assist him in his ‘mission’ but was frustrated and disappointed with the deceased’s failure. The Accused then perceived the deceased as a person who attempted to obstruct the Accused’s ‘mission’ by spreading allegations, accusations and slander against the Accused through his (the deceased’s) sermons during prayers at the mosque. The Accused’s urge to remove his perceived obstruction to his ‘mission’ has seemingly prompted the Accused to kill the deceased.
 Exhibit D1 further revealed:
(1) the Accused’s state of mind;
(2) the circumstances under which the Accused had acted; and
(3) the reason why the Accused did it.
 The Accused had taken upon himself as the saviour of the world and human soul by championing the correct teaching of islam as perceived by him. And to that end, the Accused would stop at nothing to ensure that his self-assumed ‘mission’ is not derailed by anybody.
III. DEFENCE OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND
 Learned counsel Mr Yap Yau Sin raised the defence of unsoundness of mind pursuant to s.84 of the Penal Code (“s.84”).
 In response, learned Deputy Public Prosecutor En. Yaacub Hj Chik argued that the Accused had been evaluated by a Government psychiatrist and was found to be normal and conscious of his act at the time of committing the crime.
 The vital question for our decision is whether the Accused had succeeded in establishing his unsoundness of mind under s.84 which reads:
“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”.
 S.84 provides a complete defence if the Accused had committed the offence under the circumstances stated therein. The burden of proving this defence is on the Accused who may do so on a balance
of probabilities. Until this is established, the court shall presume the absence of soundness of mind. This is consistent with the common law presumption of sanity.
 Upon a proper perusal of Exhibit D1, the learned trial Judge found that the Accused was well aware of what he was doing when he plunged the knife, Exh P.19, into the deceased’s chest.
 The Accused had been referred to a Government psychiatrist for observation and was certified fit to stand trial. Accused’s learned counsel had not applied to the court to refer the Accused to another psychiatrist for an independent evaluation of the Accused’s mental state generally or at the time of committing the offence specifically.
 The issue of unsoundness of mind was raised only in submission. Except for Exh D1, no other evidence was adduced for the Accused either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or the examination-in-chief of the Accused himself. That being the case, such defence need not be considered: See Public Prosecutor v Misbah bin Saat  3 MLJ 495 HC.
 With regret, we could not sustain the submission presented for the Accused. Our answer to the above question is in the negative. The learned trial Judge has correctly found the Accused guilty as charged and convicted him. We therefore dismissed this Appeal,
affirmed the conviction and mandatory sentence imposed by the Court below.
DATUK WIRA LOW HOP BING
Court of Appeal Malaysia PUTRAJAYA
Dated this 9th day of March 2012
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Mr Yap Yau Sin
Messrs Ranbir S. Sangha & Co Advocates & Solicitors 2nd Floor, Lot 1372
Centre Point Commercial Centre Phase II
Jalan Kubu, 98000 Miri
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
En. Yaacub Hj Chik
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Jabatan Peguam Negara, Malaysia
Tingkat 3, Blok B, Bangunan Persekutuan
Jalan Cahaya Lopeng
Public Prosecutor v Misbah bin Saat  3 MLJ 495 HC