The document discusses the crime of murder in Malaysia, outlining its definition, legal framework, and punishment under the Malaysian Penal Code. It compares Malaysia's murder rates and solving rates with other countries while also touching on the philosophical aspects of murder and its moral implications as influenced by natural law and deontological theory. Additionally, it examines relevant case law and the evolution of punishments for murder in different jurisdictions, including India.

1. NUR IZZATI ZAFIRAH BT ZAINAL (225296)
NUR AKMAL BT ADNAN (225543)
NAJIHA BT ZAHID (225909)
ASMAH BT CHE WAN (226388)
WAN NUR FATIHAH BT MUKHTAR (226713)
DENI SAPUTRA B MUZAKIR (229107)
NURULHAFFIZAH BT AHMAD (229109)
MUHAMMAD FAIZI B TAJUDDIN (229112)

2. Murder  Unlawful killing of another
human being without justification or
valid excuse.
Punishment  the heaviest sentence
imposed depends on country. Usually life
imprisonment or capital punishment.
Australia = life imprisonment
Malaysia = capital punishment

3. • Malaysia was rated as the country with third highest
crime rate of murder after Russia and United States with
2.73 cases for per 100, 000 persons in year 2000. (World
Data Atlas)
• when it comes to murder solving cases, Malaysia was not
included in the list of top ten countries which succeeded
in solving murder crimes unlike Taiwan, Japan, Canada
and other countries.
• from year 2000 until 2010, the crime rates involving
intentional murder has declined to 1.9 cases for per 100,
000 persons , making Malaysia listed as one of safest
country in Southern Asia in year 2011 and ranked 19th of
the safest country in the world

4. Prohibitionof murder in Islam..
“Whoever slays a soul, unless it be for a manslaughter
or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all
men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept
alive all men.”
(Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:32)

6. MURDER IN MALAYSIA
DEFINITION
Causing death of a human being by
another human being.
MURDER UNDER THE PENAL CODE
- In the Malaysian law, the crime of
murder is discussed under S. 300 of
the Penal Code while the
punishment is mention under S.
302

7. From S. 300 it can be extracted that there are 4 elements of
murder.
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death;
(b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused;
(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person,
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.

8. S. 302 - Whoever commits murder
shall be punished with death.

9. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
• Penal code also listed out 5 exceptions to
the offence of murder under S.300
• Should an offence fulfilled any of the
elements under S.300, but somehow the
incident happens under any of the situation
as stated under the special exceptions, the
offence should be addressed as Culpable
Homicide not Amounting To Murder.
• For that matter, the punishment will be
reduced from that of a murder. ( S. 304: 10-
30 years imprisonment, or/with fine, or
both).

10. 1) Provocation
2) exceeding right of private defense
3) sudden fight
4) exceeding public powers
5) Consented murder

11. Al SaripBinAmbong v PublicProsecutor
• The appellant was charged before the High Court at Tawau with
the murder of one Muslim bin Sammah by stabbing him with a
knife and was convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death
penalty under section 302 of the Penal Code. The appellant
appealed.
• Three issues were raised before the court, that is;
• i. That the learned trial judge erred when he rejected
evidence that the appellant sustained injuries
• ii. That the learned trial judge had erred in law when he had
put extra burden on the appellant of the need to tell someone
after the incident that he was acting in self defence.
• iii. That the learned trial judge erred in his finding of facts by
inferring that the appellant was the one who took the knife from
the kitchen.

12. Held: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and
sentence of the learned trial judge is affirmed. In regards to
the first issue, the trial judge did consider the injury,
however did not consider it as a defensive wound. For the
second issue, it was found out that no such extra burden
was placed upon the appellant of the need to tell someone
after the incident that he was acting in self-defence, but the
evidence credibility was being questioned. And for the final
issue, the trial judge was not found erred in his finding that
the appellant was the one who took the knife based on
circumstantial evidence.

13. MURDER ANDITS
PUNISHMENT UNDER
OTHER JURISDICTION

14. INDIA
After the partition of the British Indian Empire, the
Indian Penal Code was inherited by its successor states,
the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan.
The Code was also adopted by the British colonial
authorities including Malaysia (previously known as the
Straits Settlements), Singapore and Brunei.
The Code remains as the basis of the criminal codes in
Malaysia.
Therefore, it is not shocking that S.300 of the Penal
Code of India and Malaysia stated on the offence of
murder, with the same elements and also the same
punishment.

15. Satya Narain @ Satpal vs State Of Rajasthan
In this case, the appellant appeal against the decision made by
Additional Session Court which sentenced the appellant under section
302 of India Penal Code as he murdered the deceased known as Balram.
The appellant’s job is an exorcist and fortune teller.
The case begun when the deceased and one of the witnesses (PW1)
went to appellant’s house to know about their future and about the evil
soul troubling Balram’s wife. It is alleged that accused Satya Narain and
his wife, Guddi asked them to bring a bottle of liquor for the sake of the
ritual. Thereafter the appellant asked all of them to drink liquor as part
of the ritual. After all of them drink the liquor, the appellant and two
other accused namely, Guddi and Kalu, tied hands and feet of PW1 and
Balram by ropes. Then, all the accused assault both of them repeatedly.
The main incident of this case happens when the appellant struck iron
rod on the head of the deceased and also twisted his neck which cause
the deceased died.

16. Court Held:
Court dismissed appellant’s appeal
as after examined the accused’s
act carefully, the court agreed with
the prosecution that the accused
had mens rea or intention to
commit murder by assault the
deceased repeatedly and also
twisted his neck.

17. • However, according to a 2014 article written by Tariq
Ahmad, a legal research analyst, the court in India is seen
to be adopting inconsistent view on the punishment for
murder after the amendment made to the India’s Code of
Criminal Procedure.
• Previously, the punishment for murder under India’s Penal
Code is life imprisonment or death and the person is also
liable to a fine.
• Following the amendment, it was held that in Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab.
• “the offence of murder shall be punished with the
sentence of life imprisonment. The court can depart from
that rule and impose the sentence of death only if there
are special reasons for doing so.”

18. MURDER &
JURISPRUDENCE

19. BASEDON NATURALLAW
Natural law theory is a legal theory that
recognizes law and morality as deeply
connected, if not one and the same.
Morality relates to what is right and wrong
and what is good and bad.
Natural law theorists believe that human laws
are defined by morality, and not by an
authority figure, like a king or a government.
Natural law requires that we protect people
life, therefore murder is contrast with natural
law.

20. ARISTOTLE’S VIEW
Aristotle says our purpose in life is to use rationality with
moral virtue. He stated that actions of murder are not the
source of immorality, but the character that commits those
actions is.
When considering murder, Aristotle would say murder is not
virtuous because there is no mean, or intermediate state.
Murder is murder whether it is killing one person or ten
people. Either way you look at it, it is still wrong. Aristotle
give two primary reasons why the act of murder is wrong:
first, it is an act of bad character. Second, regardless of how
much virtue or vice a person has, an act of murder is an act
of vice.
Being a murderer is not positive and therefore would not fit
into his theory of moral virtue.

21. ST THOMAS AQUINAS’S VIEW
Aquinas stated there are four principles of natural law and the
second principal forbids us to kill because murder is against the
natural law.
"Whatever is a means of preserving human life and of warding off
its obstacles belongs to natural law";
He stated that God forbids one to kill another because life is
God’s gift to man.
“Thou shalt not kill men.”
However Aquinas suggest capital punishment (death penalty)
towards the criminal when it is necessary to protect the rest of
society.
“if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on
account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he
be killed in order to safeguard the common good”

22. Relationship with Malaysian
law
It can be seen that natural law theory has some agreement with
Malaysian law for murder’s crime for example:
In Malaysian law, the act of murder is also considered as immoral
act because it is kind of unlawful homicide. In natural law theory
the act of murder is an offence that will cost a person his life
which is considered wrong and unacceptable in nature.
Malaysian law imposed capital punishment (death penalty) for
murder crimes which if a person is found liable guilty for
committing murder, thereof he will be liable to death penalty
under section 300 of Penal Code. Aquinas suggest capital
punishment (death penalty) towards the criminal when it is
necessary to protect the rest of society.

23. POSITIVISM

24. L.H.A Hart
• There is no connection between law and morality
• Hart insisted that the connection was not a necessary one.
Law can still exist without morality. Law can be moral,
immoral and amoral.
• Hart divide the rule into two; Primary Rule and Secondary
Rule.
• Primary rules are generally duty imposing (Criminal law)
• ‘secondary rules’ are ones which let people, by doing certain
things, introduce new rules of the first kind, or alter them.
• Hart believes a system consisting entirely of the kind of liberty
restrictions found in the criminal law is, at best, a
rudimentary or primitive legal system.

26. John Austin
• Austin differentiate the ‘law as it is’ and ‘law as ought
to be’
• Existence of law is one thing – we have to follow the
stated law
• Not rejected the importance of morality but it must be
separated
• He view law as the command of sovereign – laid down
for guidance
• Law must backed with sanction – without sanction
people will not obey the law
• Sanction is necessary component to the law

28. NORMATIVE
JURISPRUDENCE
DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY&
MURDER

29. • Generally, normative jurisprudence is
knowledge or wisdom to recognise what law
ought to be in an ideal world.
• Discussion of normative jurisprudence is
what lies behind the law so as to gain a
better understanding of what makes the law.
• in relation to questions like whether the law
should be obey, why offender should be
punished, what moral or political theories
provide a foundation for the law, or is there
a duty to obey the law.

30. • Webster  deontology is "the
theory of duty or moral obligation“.
• Founder  Immanuel Kant.
• known as act-oriented approach,
thus it has been termed formalistic
as its main principle is lies in
conformity of any action to some
rule or law.
• Emphasize that right or wrong of an
act depending on morality of the act
not the consequence.

31. • Famous example
 act of legendary Robin
Hood, portrayed as a
hero even robbing
from the rich and
giving to the poor, but
according to
deontology it is
wrong.
• Stealing is a crime
even it is necessity for
that moment to do so,
it is immoral and
wrong.

32. Formulae
• According to Immanuel Kant
there are a few formulae to
see any act is right or wrong.
• An act would become
universal law=good act.
• A good act is a treatment you
give to others as you want
people to treat you.

33. Formulae & Murder
Now we will cross examine these
formulas with crime of murder.
• Can a murder be accepted by
universal law?
• Murder is prohibited around the
world.
“Any act in such a way that you
always treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of
any other”
• do a normal person or reasonable
man want to be murdered? or to
have any family members to be
murdered?

34. Deontology& PenalCode
Section 300
“except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death;
(b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused;
(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person,
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid”

35. • The ACT of hurting people with intention to
kill, to cause bodily injured and can cause of
death is more likely an immoral act.
• the theory of deontological is set in
Malaysian law for murder crime.
• Deontological theory is based on act.
• Thus crime of murder under S. 300
(intention to kill, to cause bodily injured and
can cause of death) in Malaysian Penal
Code is accordance with deontological
theory & formulas which is crime of murder
is immoral act.