DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. Q-05-149-2011
UNA ANAK MANDAU
(Dalam Perkara Perbicaraan Jenayah Bil: 45-1-2010-I (SG) Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi 1 di Sri Aman, Sarawak
Una Anak Mandau)
LOW HOP BING, JCA MOHD HISHAMUDIN BIN MD YUNUS, JCA ABDUL WAHAB BIN PATAIL, JCA
LOW HOP BING, JCA
(DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT)
 The Accused was charged with the offence of murder, to wit, by causing the death of one Cindy Anak Wat on 6 February 2010 at about 6.00 p.m at an unnumbered house at Rumah Berandah, Nanga Benggap, Lubok Antu, Sarawak, punishable under s.302 of the Penal Code.
 The learned trial Judge acquitted and discharged the Accused at the close of the defence case.
 This is the Appeal by the prosecution.
II. CASE FOR PROSECUTION
 The case for the prosecution unfolded with the testimony of Baji @ Lidi Ak Jalin (PW1), a policeman attached to the Lubok Antu Police Station. On 6 February 2010 from 10.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m, PW1 was with the deceased at Lubok Antu Bazaar, drinking alcohol known locally as “langkau”. They then left in PW1’s car. After sending the deceased home, PW1 had a rest at the Batang Ai Primary School guardhouse where the Accused was stationed. The Accused then went home to take food, returned to the guarhouse two hours later and asked PW1 to check on the deceased. The Accused
spoke to PW1 in the Iban language, about what he (the Accused) had done to the deceased. When translated into Bahasa Melayu, it went like this: “Cuba melawat kawan kamu. Saya sudah beri dia sekali” (Try visiting your friend. I have done once to him). PW1 thought nothing of what the Accused said, and went to sleep in his car which was parked by the side of the road. When PW1 woke up, he was told that the deceased had passed away. PW1 went to the deceased’s house where he saw the Accused crying. PW1 comforted the Accused.
 Lindawati Ak Una (PW3), the deceased’s wife and the Accused’s daughter, testified that on 6 February 2010, the deceased returned home drunk and quarrelled with her in the sitting room. The Accused tried to stop the quarrel. The deceased then grasped and strangled the Accused from behind. PW3 then went out of the house with her child. When PW3 went back to the house subsequently, she saw the deceased’s forehead oozing with blood. Immediately, she sent the deceased in a van to the clinic where Steve Ray Ah Shak Loi (PW4) conducted a physical examination of the deceased’s body, stitched his wound and gave him anti-tetanus injection. However, the deceased died shortly later and was brought back to his house. PW3 also testified that the deceased was habitually drunk and often vomited blood when he was drunk.
 Dr. Jamil Dolkadir (PW15) carried out an autopsy on the deceased on 8 February 2010. His autopsy report stated inter alia:
The following were the external injuries noted:
1) small laceration over left eyebrow measuring about 2 cm long which had been stitched;
2) abrasion at posterior left shoulder and lateral left wrist; and
3) bruises at anterior neck.
INTERNAL AUTOPSY FINDING
There was massive haemaperitoneum but no haethorax seen. GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM
… The anterior left lobe of the liver was ruptured measuring about 12 cm long and 8 cm deep causing the massive haemaperitoneum.
CAUSE OF DEATH
Heamoperitoneum due to ruptured liver due to blunt abdominal injuries.”
 PW15 explained that the blunt abdominal injuries could be caused by leg, hand or other blunt object.
 At the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned trial Judge was satisfied that the prosecution had established a prima
facie case against the Accused who was called upon to enter his defence.
III. DEFENCE CASE
 The Accused’s sworn evidence unveiled that on 6 February 2010 when he arrived home after work, there was an altercation between the deceased and his wife (PW3). The Accused asked PW3 what it was about . PW3 uttered “that drunk fellow”. The Accused then advised the deceased to stop drinking. The deceased responded with the words “one-eyed person” and tried to pin down the Accused from behind, but the Accused ran out of the house with his grandchild. The Accused did not know what happened to the deceased thereafter. Later, PW3 went to the school where the Accused was working and told the Accused what had happened to the deceased.
 When cross-examined, the Accused steadfastly denied the following suggestions put to him:
(1) that the deceased had strangled him from behind;
(2) that he had retaliated by hitting the deceased; and
(3) that he had used his hands and legs to hit the deceased.
IV. DECISION OF HIGH COURT
 The learned trial Judge considered all the evidence adduced before him and found that, apart from the evidence of PW3, there was a paucity of evidence to establish that the Accused had kicked or punched the deceased or that he had used a blunt object to inflict the injury to cause the death of the deceased. He held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused.
V. QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION
 The fundamental Question for determination in the instant Appeal is:
“Upon considering the entire evidence adduced at the trial, was the learned Judge correct in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubted and in ordering an acquittal and discharge of the Accused at the close of the defence case?”
 We are of the view that on the evidence adduced at the trial, the Accused’s explanation was not a bare denial. On the totality of evidence, we agree with the learned trial Judge in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the Accused’s explanation was sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The evidence and the circumstances do not admit of irresistible inferences for the purpose
of proving that the Accused had inflicted the injury which caused the death of the deceased.
 The duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt has been stated with unrivalled clarity by Mohd Azmi SCJ (as he then was) in Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v Public Prosecutor  1 CLJ (Rep) 311 at 325 SC. The principles are:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
 Where the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as in the instant Appeal, s.182A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Court to record an order of acquittal. There was no misdirection on the part of the learned trial Judge in ordering that the Accused be acquitted and discharged. Our answer to the above Question is in the affirmative.
 On the foregoing grounds, we dismiss this Appeal and affirm the decision of the High Court.
DATUK WIRA LOW HOP BING
Court of Appeal Malaysia PUTRAJAYA
Dated this 13th day of June 2012
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
En. Awang Armadajaya bin Awang Mahmud
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Jabatan Peguam Negara
Bahagian Perbicaraan & Rayuan
Aras 5, No. 45, Lot 4G7
Presint 4, Persiaran Perdana
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
En. Peli Anak Aron
Tetuan Peli Anak Aron
Peguambela & Peguamcara
1st Floor, 94B, Jalan Club/Jalan Kecil
P.O. Box 433
95000 Sri Aman
Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v Public Prosecutor  1 CLJ (Rep) 311 at 325 SC