THE Court of Appeal has fixed July 14 for decisions on an appeal by a defendant who was found guilty of the murder of 23 people in a fire at the Darul Quran Ittifaqiyah Tahfiz Centre in 2017.

A three-member panel comprising justices Abu Bakar Jais, Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and See Mee Chun, will decide on the same day the outcome of the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal of another defendant of the charge without ordering him to enter his defence.

Abu Bakar, who chaired the panel, said the bench was not prepared to deliver the decision today as it needs to scrutinise oral and written submissions.

Earlier, the court heard a submission by deputy public prosecutor How May Ling and lawyer Haijan Omar over the prosecution’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to acquit and discharge the second defendant without calling for his defence.

The appeal by the first defendant against the High Court’s decision on August 17, 2020, which declared him guilty and ordered him to be detained at the pleasure of the Yang-di-Pertuan Agong, was heard on March 9 this year.

According to the charge, both defendants (who were then 16 years old) and an unidentified person were accused of murdering and causing the deaths of 23 residents at a tahfiz centre on Jalan Keramat Hujung, Kampung Datuk Keramat, Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur, between 4.15am and 6.45am on September 14, 2017. 

In today’s proceedings, How urged the court to order the second defendant to enter his defence on the charge.

She said it is impossible for one person to cause the fire at the school as there were two gas tanks weighing 14kg each that were carried from the ground floor of the school to the second floor through the staircase.

She said one gas tank was placed horizontally at the door and another placed vertically. Petrol was splashed on the door before the fire was started.

“It is impossible for one person (to do it). It was done by two people,” she said. 

She said circumstantial evidence showed there were four people seen behind the tahfiz school – the first and second defendants as well as two brothers. The first defendant and an unidentified person entered the school by climbing the back fence. 

CCTV recordings showed a small, thin person entering the school compound through a small opening in the barbwire fence, which matches the appearance of the second defendant, she said.

Haijan, representing the two appellants, said there is no positive identification that the second defendant had entered the school, adding that they cannot rule out that the two brothers gained access to the compound. 

He said there is no evidence that the second defendant was involved in the crime, so there is no need for him to enter his defence. – Bernama, May 11, 2023.