The apex court restored the 18-year jail term imposed by the High Court for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder on Zulfarhan.

A three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim said the prosecution failed to prove the elements for murder beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.

“We set aside the murder conviction. However, there was sufficient evidence to find them guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” said Hasnah.

Also on the bench hearing the appeal were Justices Nordin Hassan and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.

Akmal Zuhairi Azmal, Azamuddin Sofi, Najib Razi, Afif Najmudin Azahat, Shobirin Sabri and Hakeem Ali were appealing to set aside their conviction for Zulfarhan’s murder by the Court of Appeal.

They were charged with murdering Zulfarhan at UPNM’s Jebat hostel on May 22, 2017.

In 2021, the High Court reduced the murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced them to 18 years in prison.

However, last year, the Court of Appeal said the prosecution had proved that the six appellants had committed murder beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court also sentenced the six to death.

Zulfarhan was assaulted by his peers non-stop for two days, from May 21 to 22, 2017, for allegedly stealing Akmal’s laptop.

The deceased had suffered 90 injuries all over his body and 30% to 50% burns. He died at Serdang Hospital on June 1, 2017.

The conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code provides a maximum jail term of 30 years.

Hasnah said the prosecution was relying on Section 300(c) of the Penal Code to prove the murder charge.

The provision states that culpable homicide amounts to murder if it is done to cause bodily injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

She acknowledged that there was evidence Zulfarhan was injured from a hot electric iron used on his body and that he was assaulted.

“The appellate court had no reason to set aside the finding of fact by the trial judge and the credibility of two key prosecution witnesses,” she said.

In coming to his finding, she said, the trial judge must also rely on the medical evidence on the cause of death.

She pointed out that prosecution witness Dr Salmah Arshad, a pathologist, had testified that the injuries sustained by Zulfarhan could have caused his death.

“However, under cross-examination, she agreed with a defence counsel’s suggestion that the injuries did not automatically cause death,” she said, adding that the prosecution did not seek clarification on this matter during re-examination.

Hasnah said the defence had called another expert, Dr Rohayu Shahar, to rebut Salmah’s opinion.

Based on the totality of the evidence, she said, the prosecution failed to prove if the injuries sustained caused Zulfarhan’s death.

Salmah also could not conclusively state if the death was due to septicaemia or bronchopneumonia, she added.

Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad represented Akmal and Azamuddin, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik appeared for Najib, while Hazman Ahmad acted for Shobrin.

Counsel Zamry Idrus represented Hakeem, M Ramachelvam acted for Afif, while the prosecution was led by K Mangai.