Public Prosecutor v Samirah Binti Muzaffar & Ors

Appellant(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

Respondent(s):

• Samirah Binti Muzaffar
• Xxxx

• YA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera
• YA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin Ibrahim
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli

• The first respondent (the deceased's wife) and the second and third respondents (her sons) were jointly charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, along with a fourth co-accused who remained at large.
• The deceased was found dead in a fire at the family home. The High Court acquitted all respondents at the close of the prosecution's case, finding that a prima facie case had not been established.
• The prosecution appealed the acquittal, while the defence also filed an appeal against certain findings made by the High Court, which the Court of Appeal subsequently struck out as redundant.

• Whether the High Court erred in finding that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case, specifically the third element of murder, i.e., that the respondents had caused the injuries resulting in the deceased's death.
• Whether the High Court correctly assessed the evidence regarding the time of death, the applicability of the "last seen together" theory, and the "opportunity to commit the offence" in connecting the respondents to the crime.
• Whether the High Court's findings on the cause of death (blast vs. blunt force trauma), the nature of the fire (accidental vs. incendiary), and the alleged conduct and motive of the respondents were supported by the evidence.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution's appeal, affirming the High Court's acquittal of the respondents, though for partially different reasons.
• The appellate court upheld the High Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove the time of death as specified in the charge and that the "last seen together" theory and "opportunity to commit the offence" were insufficient to establish the respondents' guilt.
• The Court found that the High Court erred in concluding there was no blast and that the fire was deliberately set with petrol, citing a lack of judicial appreciation of conflicting expert evidence; however, these errors did not alter the overall conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the respondents caused the deceased's death with common intention.