This follows today’s Court of Appeal ruling to allow the prosecution’s appeal to reverse the Shah Alam High Court’s decision to acquit Jamil Tawasil, 39, of the charge last year.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim said the prosecution had established a prima facie case.
“The trial judge erred in acquitting the respondent (Jamil) and ordering him to be held at the pleasure of the Ruler (as required under Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code),” he said.
Zaidi said the bench unanimously held the view that a psychiatric report prepared by a doctor from Hospital Bahagia in Ulu Kinta, Perak, did not quite establish that Jamil was suffering from legal insanity as stated under Section 84 of the Penal Code.
“The prosecution must be allowed to rebut the report,” he said, adding that the case was to be heard by the same trial judge.
Case management has been fixed for Oct 8 at the Shah Alam High Court.
Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Azman Abdullah and Noorin Badaruddin.
On Nov 28, the Shah Alam High Court said the murder had been proved but, as Jamil was insane, he should be confined and placed under the care of Hospital Bahagia for as long as consented to by the Selangor sultan.
Jamil was charged with the murder of Tawasil Sinag at a house in Taman Puteri Taragon, Batu 9, Cheras, Selangor, between 11pm and 11.15pm on Nov 9, 2019.
In the judgment, the High Court found that the accused was unable to realise his actions and did not know that what he did was wrong or illegal.
The prosecution had called Jamil’s mother, the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem and the investigation officer to testify before closing its case.
Both the prosecution and the defence had also agreed that a psychiatric report stated Jamil was suffering from medical insanity or schizophrenia and delusion at the time of the offence.
The report also stated the accused did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
However, it was the defence that adduced the report in the course of the prosecution’s case, and it was not objected to by the deputy public prosecutor who conducted the trial.
The defence then submitted that the prosecution had not made a prima facie case as Jamil was suffering from legal and medical insanity.
The prosecution, meanwhile, submitted that Jamil’s defence must be called and the doctor who prepared the report should be asked to testify and be subjected to cross-examination.
Lawyer Gurbachan Singh represented Jamil while deputy public prosecutor Norzilati Izhani Zainal appeared for the prosecution.