Damage to temple idols: AG files appeal
KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution filed an appeal yesterday against the Ipoh Sessions Court’s decision on Wednesday of acquitting a medical graduate of a charge of damaging Hindu idols at the Sree Muneeswaran Amman temple after finding him to be mentally unsound when committing the act.
In a statement yesterday, Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said that on Wednesday, the Sessions Court judge decided that the accused, Fathi Munzir Nadzri, 29, had committed an offence under Section 295 of the Penal Code, however, the judge found him to be mentally unstable at the time.
“Therefore, the judge made the decision under Section 347 of the Penal Code read together with Section 348, to acquit the accused with a warning and that he be placed under the care of his family.
“The prosecution was dissatisfied with the Sessions Court judge’s decision and has today, filed an appeal against that decision,” he said, adding that the appeal was filed in the Ipoh High Court.
On Wednesday, Sessions Court judge Ikmal Hishan Mohd Tajuddin, in his judgment, said it was clearly proven that Fathi Munzir had committed the offence, but a psychiatrist confirmed that the accused was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder with Psychotic Features Manic Phase.
“The accused had committed the offence but on the balance of probabilities, he was found to have done it while he was in an unstable state of mind and did not know that his action was unlawful,” the judge had said.
Fathi Munzir was charged with damaging the idols at the temple in front of the Angsana Mall in Ipoh at 5pm on April 24, this year.
The offence under Section 295 of the Penal Code carries a jail term of up to two years or a fine, or both.
The court also acquitted and discharged Fathi Munzir of possessing a machete at the same place and date. - Bernama KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here yesterday heard that Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir’s defamation suit against the Prime Minister’s press secretary is merely for political purposes.
Lawyer Datuk Seri Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos, representing Datuk Seri Tengku Sharifuddin Tengku Ahmad, said the press statements issued by his client made no reference to Mukhriz and anyone reading those statements was unlikely to deduce that the statements were defamatory of Mukhriz, the plaintiff.
He argued that Mukhriz’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and of being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and that his action was groundless and therefore had no prospect of success.
“The plaintiff’s action is an abuse of the process of the court and merely for political purposes,” he said, adding that the suit ought to be struck out.
Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, who acted for Mukhriz, countered that the press statements published and broadcasted by Tengku Sharifuddin, the defendant, had in fact exposed Mukhriz to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the minds of right-thinking members of society.
“More importantly, those statements had severely tarnished his reputation as a member of the State Legislative Assembly of Ayer Hitam, Kedah, former Menteri Besar of Kedah, politician, as well as a public figure and a leader of the people, especially for the citizens of the State of Kedah,” he said.
Judicial Commissioner Datuk Roslan Abu Bakar fixed Jan 6 next year to decide on Tengku Sharifuddin’s application to strike out Mukhriz’s suit.
Mukhriz, 51, filed the suit on May 3, alleging that Tengku Sharifuddin had issued four defamatory statements against him on April 15, 20, 23 and 26.
The statements were issued under the headings, ‘Prime Minister’s Press Secretary Statement on Donation Confirmation by Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister’, ‘Prime Minister’s Press Secretary Statement on Former DPM’s Reuters Interview’, ‘Mukhriz Mahathir Statement: Response by Prime Minister’s Press Secretary’, and ‘Prime Minister’s Press Secretary Statement on Tun Mahathir Mohamad and Mukhriz Mahathir’.
Mukhriz alleged that the statements implied that Dr Mahathir and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had conspired in a malicious campaign to topple a democratically-elected government and that he was involved directly in the plot between Dr Mahathir and Muhyiddin.
Tengku Sharifuddin, in his statement of defence, denied that the four statements had disparaged Mukhriz and stressed that the statements were to explain and counter false accusations against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
The defendant said he bore no malice in issuing the media statements which were published for information and in the interest of the Malaysian people.
He said he had a duty and responsibility to defend the prime minister and counter false accusations for the people to have an accurate picture and facts, which had been deliberately twisted by irresponsible parties for political interest. - Bernama