Previous 2 / 23 Next

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

AROKIASAMY ALPHONSO

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Malaysia

Nationalities

Malaysian

Case Title: Arokiasamy a/l Alphonso (Federal Court Criminal Appeal No. 05-79-2011(J))

Age at Offence: 50

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Unknown

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Minorities: Ethnicity

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: 2010s: 2011

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Mental Health: Psychiatrist

Case Background (300 words max): In the High Court, the respondent was charged for the murder of his sister-in-law (‘deceased’) under s. 302 of the Penal Code. The respondent had suddenly appeared at the inspector’s office at the police station, with blood stains on his shirt, admitting that he had killed the deceased. The respondent then led the inspector to a green car, where they found the dead body of the deceased.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge acquitted the respondent on ground of insanity and he was ordered to be kept in safe custody pursuant to s. 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Public Prosecutor appealed to this court. Prosecution argues that there was motive to kill the deceased because there was an argument between them prior to the incident as the respondent was angry with the deceased and thus, stabbed her with a knife.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision, found him guilty of murder, and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal’s decision was affirmed by the Federal Court. Following the Applicant’s resentencing hearing on 16 May 2024, his death sentence was set aside and substituted with an imprisonment term of 33 years from the date of his arrest (in 2000).

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): The defense argued that Arokiasamy was legally insane at the time of the offense and, therefore, could not be held criminally responsible under Section 84 of the Malaysian Penal Code. The respondent further submitted that he could not remember using any physical violence on her nor taking with him any knife and there was silence in the car when the deceased did not respond when he called her name.

They claimed that his personality had changed due to a heart condition and medical treatments, leading to abnormal behavior and aggression. A forensic psychiatrist (defense witness) examined him 15 days after the crime and found that he was not insane at the time he committed the offense, however this was under the assessment respondent could have hallucinations or delusions. However, she also acknowledged the difficulty of assessing his mental state at the time of the murder. In her opinion, it was not improbable in view of the respondent’s medical history that he may have lapsed into a state of mindlessness as not to have been conscious of what he was doing.

The defense also emphasized the lack of premeditation, arguing that his condition prevented him from forming intent.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): It was the High Court’s findings, inter alia, that (i) the respondent had established the defence of insanity (ii) the respondent experienced change of personality after undergoing heart surgery in 1998 (iii) the respondent was not a person of an aggressive nature until he underwent the surgery when his personality changed and (iv) the respondent posed depressive symptoms after his cardiac operation.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected the insanity defense, finding that the nature of the crime, multiple stab wounds, and his voluntary surrender to the police indicated he was aware of his actions, leading to his conviction and death sentence.

Legal Representation Received

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

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

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

English

Is the case brief featured?: No

Primary Documents

Arokiasamy - Court of Appeal Judgement.pdf
Other
Download View

Supporting files

Death Penalty in Malaysia: The Prerogative of the Gavel

Malaysia’s Death Penalty and the Justice System: The Arokiasamy Murder Case

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

AROKIASAMY ALPHONSO

Primary Documents

Supporting files

Notifications