APPEAL CASE: PP v Suraj Bahadur Sunar

I have chosen one of the Malaysia cases which is PP v Suraj Bahadur Sunar which decided in Court of
Appeal in 2012. The respondent was charged for murder in High Court earlier for murdering Indra Rani
a/p Munusamy which punishable under Section 302 of Penal Code. The deceased was found with throat
slit. The issue is whether the respondent could enjoy the defense of unsoundness of mind under Section
84 of Penal Code which referred only to medical insanity and not only legal insanity. The High Court held
that the defendant could enjoy the defense of unsoundness of mind regarding the medical statement
from the accused’s brother and also his psychiatrist from Nepal.

In Court of Appeal, the decision however set aside. This is because the respondent was consistent
enough, being calm and could cooperatively answer the question given by Malaysian psychiatrist. The
court further take a look on the requirements under Section 84 to be succeed with detailed. The first
requirement is the time of doing the act, he must reasonable being unsound, the second requirement is
he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act and finally, he is doing what is either wrong or
contrary to law.

Following the evidence from the Malaysian psychiatrist, the respondent was never admitted in any
hospital for mental illness. Therefore, the assumption of he was unsoundness of mind even at the time
of making the crime was wrong and did not fulfilled the first requirement under Section 84 of Penal
Code. Thus, he was able to know the nature of the act which from the evidence of the accused’s
employer, stated that he never sees the accused acted abnormal and understand the action and the
nature of everything surrounding him. Lastly, of course the action of murder was an action in which
contrary to law in any country.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and sentenced the respondent to death under
Section 302 of Penal Code.