KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 17 — Tears rolled down the cheeks of the 19-year-old who was sentenced to be detained at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after he was found guilty of murdering 23 people in a fire at Pusat Tahfiz Darul Quran Ittifaqiyah in 2017.
The teenager, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident, was seen wiping his face several times when High Court Judge Datuk Azman Abdullah read out his decision.
The sentence was meted out after the defence failed to raise reasonable doubts against the 23 murder charges
“After hearing the testimony of all parties, the court finds that the first offender (the teenager) intentionally committed mischief to cause death,” said the judge.
He said since the teenager was still a juvenile when the offence was committed, he had applied Section 97(1) of the Child Act 2001 to sentence him.
It is up to the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to determine the terms and conditions of the teenager’s detention, he added.
“The case items other than documentary evidence, namely hard exhibits, will be handed over to the police to be kept safe until the appeals process, if any, is completed,” said the judge.
Before reading the summary of his judgment, Judge Azman reminded the media and other parties not to publish the name of the first nominee (the teenager) who was sitting in the dock or to give out any address or other identifiable information about the teenager.
“This is because the first nominee was a juvenile when the offence was committed,” he said.
In his decision, Judge Azman said according to the 68th prosecution witness, namely a 14-year-old boy who was 12 at the time of the incident told the court that on the night of the incident, he was chatting with four friends including the first nominee at a stall.
He said the main prosecution witness had heard the conversation about setting fire to the tahfiz centre, but was not sure who said it.
“The 68th witness also saw the first nominee climb the fence of the tahfiz centre and enter the tahfiz area with another individual. Although he was able to recognise the face of the first nominee, he could not make out who was with the nominee at that time,” he said
Judge Azman said the 69th prosecution witness, who is the adopted brother of the 68th witness, also supported the testimony of the 68th witness where he heard the voice of the first nominee asking “when to burn the tahfiz centre”
He said the witness who was 15-years-old at the time of the incident also heard someone chip in, saying “buy petrol” but he was not sure who said while at the cafe at 2.38 am.
The judge also said the facts of the incident also corroborated with the testimonies as there were traces of petrol and a gas tank found at the main door of the tahfiz centre which was closed, trapping the victims during the incident.
“There was also another door, but it had been turned into a wall of the supervisor’s room who lived with his family at the tahfiz centre. This meant that there was only one exit route in case of an emergency, “he said.
On Jan 28, 2020, Justice Azman ordered the teenager to enter his defence on the charge after finding that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against him.
According to an amended charge, the teenager, together with another unidentified individual, was charged with murdering and causing the death of the 23 people staying at the tahfiz centre at Jalan Keramat Hujung, Kampung Datuk Keramat, Wangsa Maju here, between 4.15 am and 6.45 am on Sept 14, 2017.
He was charged with 23 counts of murder, each framed under Section 302 of the Penal Code and read together with Section 34 of the same law, which provides the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.
However, Section 97(1) of the Child Act 2001 states that a death sentence shall not be pronounced or recorded against a person convicted of an offence if the child is under the age of 18, and in lieu of the death sentence, as provided under Section 97 (2) of the same law, the court shall order the person to be detained at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Section 94 of the same law also empowers the court to order the parents or guardian of the child offender to pay fine or compensation.
— Bernama
