Previous 21 / 40 Next

[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H I Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 865 specimens had been sourced: ‘On comparison, I found the findings as follows: (1) The DNA profile developed from the blood stains on sarong marked ‘E11’ and brassiere marked ‘E14’ and the seminal stains from mat marked ‘E1’, seminal stains from sarong marked ‘E11’, and seminal stains from panties marked ‘E13’ to match with each other, and with that developed from blood specimen marked ‘E24’ which was labeled ‘Muhamad Rasid’, thus indicating the DNA identified originated from the same source. The probability of a randomly selected unrelated individual having a matching DNA profile is 1 in 110 quintillion, as calculated based on the Malaysian Malay Population Database kept in my department. I also found that the partial DNA profile, developed from E15(e) (one of the plastic tubes containing swab-stick) to be consistent which having come from the same source as blood specimen marked ‘E24’ (Muhamad Rasid’s). Secondly, the DNA profiles developed from hairs in envelopes marked ‘E2A’ and ‘E8’, blood stains on mat ‘E1’, towels ‘E2’ and ‘E3’, swabs ‘E6’(A), pillow and pillow case ‘E9’, and T-shirt ‘E12’ to match with each other and with that developed from blood specimen marked ‘E16’, which was labelled ‘Siti Zawiah bte sudin’, thus indicating that the DNA identified originated from the same source. The probability of a randomly selected unrelated individual having a matching DNA profile is 1 in 760 quintillion, as calculated based on the Malaysia Malay population database kept in my department. Thirdly, the DNA profile developed from the non-sperm cell fraction of the seminal stains on mat marked ‘E1’, sarong ‘E11’, and panties ‘E13’ to be mixed DNA profile originating from at least on female and one male source. The sources represented by blood stain specimen marked ‘E16’ and labelled ‘Siti Zawiah bte Sudin’ and blood specimen marked ‘E24’ which was labelled ‘Muhammad Rasid’ were consistent with being the female and male contributors to the said mixed DNA profile. Fourthly, the DNA profile developed from the blood stains on sarong marked ‘E10’, raffia string marked ‘E5’, swab from sheath marked ‘E4’, swabs marked ‘E6B’, E15(c) and E15(g) to be mixed DNA profile to have originated from at least 1 female and one male source. The sources represented by blood stains specimen marked ‘E16’ and blood specimen marked ‘E24’ were consistent with being the female and male contributor respectively, through the mixed profile. Further, I found that partial DNA profile developed from the blood stains on electric iron marked ‘E6’ to be mixed profile consistently with having come from the sources represented from the blood specimens marked ‘E16’ and blood specimen marked ‘E24’. Fifthly, no foreign DNA profiles were developed from swabs marked E15(a), (b), (d), (f ), (h) and (i); as well as from nail clipping marked ‘E20’ and ‘E21’ which only gave a female DNA profile concordant with blood specimen ‘E16’ — ‘Siti Zawiah bte Sudin.’

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

MUHAMAD RASID BIN HASHIM

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Malaysia

Nationalities

Malaysian

Case Title: Muhamad Rasid bin Hashim (Federal Court Criminal Appeal No. 05-51-04/2012(B))

Age at Offence: 29

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Islam

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 4.2105

Longitude: 101.9758

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): Malaysia

Contributing TRP Partner

Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (Malaysia)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2000s: 2009

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Other
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology
Forensic/Medical evidence: Trace evidence (hair, fibers, paint, glass etc)

Case Background (300 words max): Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim was charged for having committed the offences of rape and murder of Siti Zawiah bt Sudin on 9 March 2006. The deceased, who was staying for about a week with her two friends, was home alone on 9 March 2006 after her two friends had left for their respective workplaces in the morning. When the two friends finally entered their apartment and managed to open the locked bedroom they saw the deceased writhing in pain on the floor in the room. Although the deceased was rushed to the hospital, she died shortly after arrival at the hospital. An autopsy performed on the deceased’s body revealed that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries and both or either of two injuries could have caused her death. The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem believed that either the head injury or the strangulation could have caused the death of the deceased. The pathologist also opined that the injuries were not self-inflicted and that they were most likely sustained while the deceased was acting in self-defence while thwarting frontal assaults on her.

The applicant was arrested on 29 March 2006 and was charged with one count of murder and rape under s302 and s376 of the Penal Code respectively. The applicant was tried before the High Court of Kuala Lumpur and was found guilty under s302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to mandatory death. He was also convicted and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment from the date of arrest and ordered to be whipped five times for raping Siti Zawiah binti Sudin, an offence punishable under s 376 of the Penal Code.

His appeals to the Court of Appeal on 13 March 2012 and the Federal Court on 15 April 2013 were unsuccessful. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, and the mandatory death sentence was affirmed.

The Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of The Federal Court) Act 2023 was introduced and took effect on 12 September 2023 to confer the Federal Court the jurisdiction to undertake the resentencing of the prisoners who have been sentenced to death or being imprisoned for natural life. An application for resentencing was filed on behalf of Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim in the Federal Court.

The Applicant’s death sentence was commuted in this application, and he was sentenced to 38 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest and 12 strokes of whipping.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): At the High Court of Kuala Lumpur, the defence argued that since there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution evidence was circumstantial. Due to overwhelming forensic evidence, the defence was rejected.

At the Court of Appeal, by his notice of appeal of 16 September 2009, the applicant appealed in respect of the conviction and sentence under s 302. of the Penal Code. The grounds set out in the petition of appeal may be summarised as follows: (a) The learned judge erred in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder under s 300 when at the most the evidence shows an offence under s 304; (b) The learned judge erred when he failed to give sufficient consideration to the unsworn statement of the appellant; (c) The learned judge erred when he failed to appreciate there was a break in the chain of evidence; (d) The learned judge erred when he failed to apply s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950on the prosecution; (e) The learned judge erred when he failed to give sufficient consideration to aspects favouring the defence.

The Court of Appeal found neither error nor reason to disagree with the reasoning of and the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge, leading to the conclusion that the rebuttal or explanation by the appellant in his defence did not raise a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence by the High Court.

On 13 February 2024, in his application, the Federal Court took into account amongst others, the individualised mitigating circumstances of the applicant which include the fact that the applicant suffers a tremendous amount of psychological anguish as he awaits his execution for more than 17 years. The applicant witnessed the execution of three of his peers convicted of the same offences with the executions occurring just a few cells away from his own.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): On 15 November 2006, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur convicted Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim under s302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to mandatory death.

On 15 November 2006, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur convicted Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim under s302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to mandatory death.

On 1 June 2012, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence by the High Court.

In the resentencing application, The Federal Court accepts the principle that the court shall consider all mitigating circumstances regarding the offence and the applicant that might earn the applicant the court’s compassion.

Legal Representation Received

Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown
Second Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder (carries the death penalty)

Section 376 of the Penal Code for rape

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

English
Malay

Is the case brief featured?: No

Primary Documents

Public_Prosecutor_v_Muhammad_Rasid_bin_Hashim.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

MUHAMAD RASID BIN HASHIM

Primary Documents

Notifications