Connect with us


Malaysian man accidentally kills robber with car in panic, faces murder probe

A Malaysian man faces murder charges after unintentionally causing the death of a robber during a harrowing encounter with three assailants in front of a pharmacy in Kuala Kedah.



robbery gone wrong
(Photo: Mynewshub/Facebook)

MALAYSIA: A Malaysian man finds himself entangled in a legal battle after a harrowing encounter with three robbers resulted in the unintentional death of one of them.

The incident, which occurred on Tuesday (19 Mar) at 6:39 am in front of a pharmacy in Kuala Kedah, has led to murder charges being brought against the man.

According to Berita Harian reports, the victim was inside his car when three assailants on two motorcycles suddenly approached him.

One of the assailants shattered the car window using an object, as relayed by Kota Setar district police chief Assistant Commissioner Ahmad Shukri Mat Akhir.

In a state of panic, the victim accelerated his car in an attempt to flee.

However, he allegedly collided with the motorcycle of one of the suspects, who was attempting to block his escape route.

Tragically, the collision proved fatal for the 29-year-old suspect, while his two accomplices managed to evade capture and fled the scene, leaving the victim to face the consequences alone.

Ahmad Shukri stated that law enforcement is actively pursuing the remaining suspects, who are still at large.

Meanwhile, investigations have been initiated against the victim under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder.

Simultaneously, authorities are also pursuing charges against the suspects under Section 393 of the Penal Code for attempted robbery.

Netizens express concern over self-defence case investigated as murder

Following a post on Mynewshub’s Facebook page, numerous netizens expressed disbelief regarding the investigation into what they perceive as a case of self-defence being treated as murder under the penal code.

One comment highlighted the paradox of laws crafted by humans, suggesting that individuals who attempt to defend themselves end up facing legal consequences.

They expressed concern that if victims willingly surrendered to robbery and filed a report afterwards, criminals would have free rein to operate.


Another user adopted a sarcastic tone, implying that according to the logic being applied, individuals should passively accept danger without resistance.

They likened it to a scenario where someone intent on harming you is allowed to proceed unchecked, drawing a comparison to willingly offering one’s neck for slaughter.


A different comment emphasized the involuntary nature of the victim’s actions, arguing that their response was driven by the necessity of self-defence.

They cited similar cases where individuals, while attempting to protect themselves, inadvertently caused harm to the perpetrator, only to find themselves facing murder charges instead.


Netizens debate legal process in self-defence case

However, some netizens offered explanations regarding the investigation under Section 302, clarifying that it is standard procedure due to the suspect’s death, without implying automatic guilt on the victim’s part.

One netizen pointed out that the investigation is necessary because of the suspect’s demise at the scene, emphasizing that being investigated doesn’t equate to being convicted.

They stressed the importance of proving that the victim acted in self-defence, highlighting that undergoing investigation is a procedural step rather than a confirmation of guilt.


Another netizen expressed frustration at the lack of understanding about legal processes, noting the presence of an “investigation paper.”

They highlighted the need for authorities to determine the circumstances of the suspect’s death, dismissing the idea of a simplistic courtroom exchange where innocence is declared based solely on verbal claims.

They explained that any death caused by one person to another automatically triggers investigation under Section 302, regardless of guilt, underscoring the importance of due process in determining outcomes.


Share this post via:
Continue Reading
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Only in mud land with mud law, where there is no self defence claim and protection from mud trash who want to take your life.
Sinkie should now be more ‘appreciative’ and show some gratitude to the PAP in the country ,instead of kow peh kow bu everyday here ,where such trash if there are any ,does not pose such problem, let alone hijacking your car and want to rob and take your life and you have no claim to self defence!😆😆😆

As in “caveat emptor” which is Latin for “let the buyer beware”, … being the principle in contract law.

In this and every instance, … robbers, thieves and criminals must beware too !!!

For they could very well be maimed, crippled or die, … in their “quest/pursuit” !!!

The driver just wanted to escape so where is the intent to kill? Surely the police don’t expect the driver to wait to be robbed.

The guy just did society a favour so why charge him? He got rid of scum.