Mohd Safuan bin Ramli v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Mohd Safuan Bin Ramli

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code for the murder of his 2-year-10-month-old niece, whom he stabbed in the chest with a knife at the family home.
• At the High Court, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death; his defence had raised unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Penal Code, supported by psychiatric evidence that he suffered from amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder with auditory hallucinations.
• The defence's own psychiatric expert concluded that despite the psychotic disorder, the appellant was legally sane at the time of the offence and knew his act was wrong, and the trial judge rejected the insanity defence and convicted him as charged.

• Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Penal Code, and whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proving this defence on a balance of probabilities under Section 105 of the Evidence Act 1950.
• The proper application of the two-stage test distinguishing "medical insanity" from "legal insanity", and whether psychosis induced by voluntary drug intoxication can found a defence under Section 84.
• Whether, in light of the appellant's mental health history and the abolition of mandatory death penalty under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, the death sentence should be set aside in favour of an alternative sentence.

• The Court held that the appellant failed to establish even the first stage of the insanity defence (medical insanity), as the psychiatric evidence conclusively showed he was sane, legally responsible, and aware his actions were wrongful at the time of the killing; consequently, the issue of legal insanity did not arise.
• The Court found that the appellant's conduct—choosing not to attack his mother despite hearing the same "voices," but proceeding to attack the child, then discarding the weapon and fleeing—demonstrated cognitive awareness and selective decision-making inconsistent with legal insanity; the conviction under Section 302 was accordingly upheld.
• Exercising its discretion under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, the Court set aside the death sentence, holding that the case did not fall within the "rarest of rare" category given the appellant's genuine history of drug-induced psychosis, and substituted a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest together with 12 strokes of whipping.