The ruling was made in a case which saw six former Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia students convicted of causing the death of navy cadet officer Zulfarhan Osman Zulkarnain.
Zulfarhan succumbed to severe burn injuries after being tortured with a hot electric iron over a missing laptop computer eight years ago.
In convicting Akmal Zuhairi Azman, Azamuddin Sofi, Najib Razi, Afif Najmudin Azahat, Shobirin Sabri and Abdoul Hakeem Ali of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Justice Nordin Hassan said:
“The law is clear that a bare denial, without any other evidence that the court can rely on, is insufficient to challenge the prosecution’s case.
“In other words, to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, the defence cannot rely solely on a bare denial.”
In a 74-page judgment released last week, Nordin said a good defence was one capable of answering the evidence tendered by the prosecution sufficiently to raise a reasonable doubt in the case.
The six accused were initially charged with murder.
However, in 2021, the High Court found the accused guilty of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced them to 18 years in prison. Section 304(a) of the Penal Code provided for a maximum jail term of 30 years.
Last year, the Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution’s appeal, ruling that the six accused had committed murder. All six accused were sentenced to death.
On Feb 28, a three-member bench comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim, Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil and Nordin, overturned the appeals court’s decision and restored their convictions and the sentence imposed by the High Court.
Nordin said the evidence showed that Zulfarhan had been assaulted non-stop over the course of two days in May 2017, suffering 90 first, second and third degree burn wounds on various parts of his body.
He died at Serdang Hospital on June 1, 2017.
Nordin said the prosecution had tendered evidence to show that Akmal, Azamuddin and Najib had, on Hakeem’s instructions, applied a hot iron to the deceased’s body.
The judge noted that the trio had, during their defence, accused another student, Mubin Mustaza, of using the iron.
However, this was not suggested to prosecution witnesses Ahmad Senabil Mohamad and Shafiq Abdullah, who testified as eyewitnesses, he said.
“During cross-examination, Shafiq confirmed that he did not see Mubin do anything to the deceased on the second night (May 22, 2017),” said Nordin.
The judge also said that Afif had in his defence testified that Akmal and Azamuddin had used the iron on the deceased the previous night.
Nordin said the accused’s failure to suggest Mubin’s involvement in the attack during the prosecution’s case allowed the court to conclude that the defence was no more than an afterthought.
He also noted that Afif had admitted to using the iron on the deceased twice, while Shobirin did so once.
“The number of times each accused applied the iron to the deceased is irrelevant to their conviction,” the judge said, adding that it was instead proof of their common intention to commit the offence.
Nordin said it was reasonable to infer from the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused had wanted to secure a confession from the deceased to theft of Akmal’s laptop.
He said they had committed a cruel act, noting that the deceased hands and feet were tied and that he had screamed and writhed in agony each time the iron was applied.
However, the judge said the prosecution was unable to prove that the crime committed was murder as forensic expert Dr Salmah Arshad testified under cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the deceased did not always or necessarily cause death.
He also said Salmah’s findings were disputed by defence expert, Dr Rohayu Shahar Adnan, from the forensic medicine department of Sungai Buloh Hospital.