PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS CRYSTAL METH

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)

Walter was a married man with two children. He was also a chemistry lecturer in the Shah
Alam University of Technology. Due to work related stress, Walter frequented Club de
Vegas in Jalan Bukit Bintang to relax and destress. In January 2019, Walter befriended
Crystal, a young and beautiful GRO at the club. Over time the friendship grew into love and
Walter rented a high-end condo in Petaling Jaya used as a love nest for him and Crystal.
Walter had promised Crystal that he would divorce his wife and marry her.

Crystal, on numerous occasions, had brought up the subject and always Walter responded
that he was not ready to divorce his wife and marry her. On 16 March 2020, after they had
sex at their love nest, Crystal again asked Walter to divorce his wife and marry her but again
he said he was not ready. Crystal accused Walter of still being very in love with his wife and
children and had no intention to leave them. Crystal, visibly upset, told Walter to go back to
his family and never to come back to see her again. This made Walter so angry that he
slapped her and called her “a stupid manipulative gold digger”. Enraged Crystal grabbed
Walter by the neck and shook him several times before she stormed out of their love nest to
go to a restaurant to have a meal and to 'cool down'. After finishing her meal Crystal tried
calling Walter on her handphone from the restaurant but he did not answer. She then returned
to their love nest but found Walter lying down lifeless.

Crystal, panicked, not knowing what to do she immediately went to see her father and her
aunty and told them what had happened. On their advice, she surrendered to the police who
went to the premises and found Walter's body. The police arrested Crystal.

1
Crystal (the accused) was later charged with the murder of Walter (the deceased) under
section 302 of the Penal Code. The charge reads as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 16 Mac 2020 antara jam lebih kurang 1.00 petang hingga 3.30
petang, di Unit No. 69, Jalan Serbuk Biru 8, Kondominium Happy Ending, di dalam
daerah Petaling Jaya, di dalam negeri Selangor, telah melakukan kesalahan
membunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian ke atas Walter Bin White (No. K/P:
760606-14-6666), dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh
dihukum di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.

During trial the prosecution argued that accused had the intention to kill the deceased or to
cause injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death. The
prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of the pathologist who conducted a postmortem on
the deceased. In his evidence, the pathologist gave his opinion as follows:

(a) The death was not accidental but caused by manual strangulation.

(b) The left thyroid bone of the deceased was fractured and there were injuries on the
deceased's neck.

(c) The bruises and wounds on the deceased's neck showed that the strangulation on the
deceased's neck was for a considerable period.

(d) There was no defensive injury found on the deceased which shows that the deceased
was not defending himself when attacked.

(e) There were bruises on the left cheek and mouth of the deceased caused by a punch or
caused by punching and slapping.

(f) It is possible that the attacker was in the state of anger when the attacker strangled the
deceased.

The prosecution submitted that the neck is an important and vulnerable part of the human
body. It is the link between the various respiratory organs that are found in the area between
the nose and the lung. An act of strangulation will prevent a person from breathing and could
result in suffocation and eventually death. Prosecution further submitted that the pathologist
had given evidence that to strangle a person for 30 seconds is sufficient to cause the person to

2
suffocate and result in death.

During the defence case the accused testified that the argument with the deceased was for
about five to ten minutes and such arguments were quite often. She told the court:

Saya pegang leher dia dan saya goncangkan 3-4 kali dan saya tampar dia. Saya pegang
leher dia sekejap.

Saya ambil kunci kereta dia dan saya keluar untuk makan. Dia ada panggil saya.

Tapi saya frust. Saya tak peduli.

The accused further inform the court that after leaving the condo, after the quarrel, she went
to have a meal at La Bodega, Bangsar. She was there for about one and a half hours. She
called the deceased's handphone but there was no reply. So, she decided to return to the house
and she bought a pack of 'keropok' which she said is the favourite of the deceased. On
reaching the house, she saw the deceased lying down and was dead. The accused said she was
shocked because the quarrel was only for a short while. The accused testified that she covered
the deceased with a blanket and she returned to her kampung and met with her family. She
told her family that she had quarreled with the deceased but she did not know how he had
died.

In so far as the act of the strangulation of the deceased's neck, the accused testified that she
held the neck of the deceased not to kill him. She said she held the neck only for a short
while. She further said that she was angry at the deceased and wanted to let off her anger. The
accused denied in her testimony that she punched the face or the mouth of the deceased.

At the end of the defence case, the trial judge reduced the charge to one of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder under section 304(1) of the Penal Code based on the following
reasons:

1) Evidence showed the accused did not intend to kill the deceased or to cause him such
bodily injury as would have caused her death but that his act was a crime of passion
resulting from grave and sudden provocation from the deceased.

3
 2) At the spur of the moment, the accused had, without realizing it, used excessive force;
but with no intention to kill or cause such injuries as were likely in the ordinary cause
events to cause the deceased’s death.
3) The accused’s actions and conduct immediately after the event also did not show the
presence of intention to kill.
4) The pathologist who had performed the post-mortem examination on the deceased
had testified that the deceased died almost instantaneously as a result of being
strangled by the accused and hence there was a doubt created that the accused did not
intend to cause the deceased's death because he had reacted in a fit of anger.

The accused was found guilty and was convicted on the said reduced charge. The High Court
sentenced her to 20 years imprisonment. Not satisfied with the decision of the learned High
Court judge, the prosecution appeals.