Kota Kinabalu: A 43-year-old police inspector escaped the gallows after the Federal Court quashed his conviction and death sentence for murdering a single mother in Keningau, 14 years ago.
A three-member bench chaired by Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan, with Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang and Datuk Nordin Hassan, allowed the appeal of Ahmad Rizal Umar after hearing the appeal on Wednesday.
The court set aside the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted and discharged Ahmad Rizal of the charge.
Delivering the court’s decision, Nallini said the panel had given full consideration to the appeal record, as well as the oral and written submissions of both parties.
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
She said the fundamental principle that had been breached was the failure of the High Court to assess the totality of the evidence as required under Section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“This is fatal,” she said.
“It is evident from a reading of the grounds of judgment that the trial judge appeared to concentrate mainly on the defence without undertaking his assessment. The Court of Appeal failed to correct this.
“In the circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt. We therefore allow the appeal. The conviction is set aside and the accused is acquitted and discharged,” she said.
Ahmad Rizal broke down in tears upon hearing the decision and was seen covering his face with both his hands.
He then prostrated on the floor in gratitude, while in the waiting room, according to his counsel Datuk Ram Singh.
On June 25, 2020, the High Court here found Ahmad Rizal guilty and sentenced him to death for murdering Kartini Borhan, 27, between 4am and 5am on Sept 29, 2011, at a house in Taman Adika, Keningau.
At the time, Ahmad Rizal was serving as a police inspector attached to the Keningau Police Station.
His appeal against the conviction and sentence was earlier dismissed by the Court of Appeal on Sept 23, 2024.
Ahmad Rizal, who was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, was initially discharged and acquitted by another High Court Judge on July 22, 2014 without his defence being called.
However, the Federal Court on March 21, 2018 ordered him to enter his defence following an appeal by the prosecution against the High Court’s decision.
Ahmad Rizal had opted to give his defence on oath on Oct 9, 2018.
Meanwhile, when met by the media, Ram, who represented Ahmad Rizal together with counsel Prem Elmer Ganasan on a pro bono basis, said Ahmad Rizal had thanked him, saying he had believed in Ram from the start.
Ram said Ahmad Rizal planned to return to his hometown in Perak to reunite with his family, who had not visited him since his defence was called.
Earlier, Ram urged the apex Court to overturn Ahmad Rizal’s conviction and death sentence.
Alternatively, he asked that the sentence be replaced with life imprisonment of 33 years and 12 strokes, under the 2023 amendment to the Penal Code following the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act.
The appellant had raised 11 grounds, among them that the Court of Appeal had erred in law and made wrong findings on the totality of the evidence.
Ram said the court failed to consider key forensic details, including multiple footprints suggesting others were present at the scene, uncertainty over the identity of exhibits, breaks in the chain of evidence, and wrong inferences drawn from Ahmad Rizal’s hair found in the deceased’s palm.
He added that the prosecution’s case was tainted by serious evidential gaps, as the handling of exhibits was never clearly proven, no officer was identified as having sealed or delivered the blood samples, and several unaccounted-for male DNA profiles were left unexplained.
These gaps were never remedied at the defence stage by the High Court Judge or addressed by the Court of Appeal, he said.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Zain Ibrahim, appearing for the public prosecutor as the respondent, urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court’s conviction and death sentence, which were also affirmed by the Court of Appeal, arguing that both the conviction and sentence were safe.
