Court of Appeal upholds 30‑year jail, 12 strokes for trader who hid step‑brother’s body in cement drum

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the High Court on trader Zamhuri Azami was appropriate and dismisses self-defence argument. PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today upheld a 30-year jail sentence and 12 strokes of the cane imposed on a former trader for murdering his step-brother and concealing the body in a cement-filled drum.

A three-judge panel, comprising Justices Noorin Badaruddin, Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid and Latifah Tahar, unanimously dismissed Zamhuri Azami's appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The panel also dismissed the prosecution's appeal to impose the death penalty on the 31-year-old accused.

Delivering the court’s unanimous decision, Noorin said the sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate and did not warrant appellate intervention.

“We also find no sufficient grounds to replace the sentence with the death penalty or a 40-year prison term, as requested by the prosecution,” she said.

Noorin said the possibility of an argument or altercation between the appellant and the deceased did not, in itself, establish that the fatal act was justified under the defence of private defence.

She also said the prosecution had successfully established the necessary intention through the evidence presented, leaving no grounds to substitute the conviction with one under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

On May 13 last year, the Alor Setar High Court found Zamhuri guilty of murdering Hasnul Nizar Khairul Anuar, 34, and sentenced him to 30 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane.

The offence was committed at their home in Kampung Padang Hassan, Bukit Pinang, Alor Setar, at 7.15pm on March 6, 2020.

According to the facts of the case, Zamhuri led police to the location where the victim’s body was concealed in a blue plastic drum filled with cement outside the house. Police also seized a meat cleaver.

During today’s proceedings, defence counsel Ai Cha Ran argued that his client had not intended to kill his step-brother, claiming that the deceased had attacked him during an altercation and that he had acted in self-defence.

He further submitted that the evidence supported only a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

However, deputy public prosecutor Nur Aqilah Syaza Ariffin argued that the pathologist’s testimony showed that the victim’s injuries, particularly a long and deep incised wound to the neck, were inconsistent with the defence’s account of a fight or struggle.