Scene of the crime: The Darul Quran Ittifaqiyah tahfiz school building damaged after the fire in Kampung Datuk Keramat in this filepic.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has announced a new date for delivering its decision in an appeal case involving a teenager convicted for the tragic murder of 23 individuals in a devastating fire at the Darul Quran Ittifaqiyah Tahfiz Centre back in 2017. The rescheduled date for this ruling is set for Sept 11.
On the same day, the court will also make a decision regarding the prosecution’s appeal against the High Court’s ruling to acquit and discharge a different teenager for the same offence, without requiring him to present a defence.
The court had previously scheduled this Friday to deliver its verdict. This date has been vacated.
The prosecution and the defence in the case have been informed by the court of the change in decision date via a letter dated June 20.
Lawyer Haijan Omar, when contacted, confirmed the decision date had been rescheduled, reported Bernama.
On May 11, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk See Mee Chun fixed this Friday to give their decision for the appeal after they completed hearing submissions from deputy public prosecutor How May Ling, and Haijan, who is representing the two teenagers.
On Aug 17, 2020, the teenager, who is now 22 years old, was convicted by the High Court for the murder offence, and he was ordered to be detained at the pleasure of the Yang-di-Pertuan Agong.
Simultaneously, the High Court acquitted and discharged another individual, who is currently 22 years old, for the same offence without requiring him to present a defence.
According to the charge, both teenagers, who were 16 years old then, together with another unidentified individual, were accused of murdering and causing the deaths of the 23 people staying at the tahfiz centre at Jalan Keramat Hujung, Kampung Datuk Keramat, Wangsa Maju here, between 4.15am and 6.45am on Sept 14, 2017.
During the appeals hearing, Haijan presented the argument that there was no testimony from any eyewitnesses confirming that the teenager had started the fire at the school. Additionally, Haijan pointed out that the prosecution’s case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence.
Meanwhile, in the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal of the second teenager, deputy public prosecutor How May Ling submitted that the fire must have been caused by more than one perpetrator as it was impossible for a 16-year-old boy to lift two gas cylinders weighing 28kg in one-go.
