ON March 29, 2026, a 33-year-old delivery rider, Amirul Hafiz Omar, was killed in an alleged high-speed collision in Klang. The suspect, 28-year-old Saktygaanapathy Ravichandran, was allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, thus causing such a fatal tragedy.
As expected, the case has drawn significant public uproar due to several factors, including the severity of the charge preferred against Saktygaanapathy.
On April 1, Saktygaanapathy was charged under section 302 of the Penal Code for murder. He was also charged under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act for allegedly consuming drugs, namely Benzo and THC. He pleaded guilty to the drug charge, which carries a fine of up to RM5,000 or a maximum of two years’ imprisonment if convicted.
The tragic loss of Amirul has indeed touched many hearts across Malaysia. A dedicated father of three, Amirul was a warehouse worker by day and a delivery rider by night, working two jobs to support his young family.
Irrespective of whether one is a Muslim or non-Muslim, his or her deep and profound sympathy definitely goes out to Amirul’s family. The fact that Amirul was reportedly on his way to buy a textbook for his child speaks volumes about his character as a loving and caring parent.
Our sympathy shall not, however, negate the fundamental right of Saktygaanapathy to be treated fairly and justly. Upholding the rule of law amidst a fatal tragedy is a tall order indeed.
While the case of Saktygaanapathy has sparked intense public emotion, the legal principle of justice and fairness remains central to the case. It is hoped the legal process will ensure the accused’s rights are upheld to maintain the integrity of the Rule of Law.
Anyway, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has decided to frame a murder charge against Saktygaanapathy over the death of Amirul.
While driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious offence globally, most jurisdictions typically prosecute fatal accidents as “vehicular manslaughter” or “negligent homicide” rather than murder.
Vehicular manslaughter is a legal classification for a crime where a person unintentionally causes the death of another through the negligent or reckless operation of a motor vehicle.
In justifying its decision, the AGC contended that the matter is a grave one that has sparked significant public outcry. Based on the case’s factual matrix, the agency argued that the circumstances warrant charging the accused with murder under section 302 of the Penal Code. Attorney-General Tan Sri Ahmad Dusuki Mokhtar, speaking with visible indignation, remarked: “It was a blatant disregard for human life”.
It is not disputed that the AG possesses the constitutional and statutory discretion under the apex law and Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC), respectively, to determine the appropriate criminal charges in any given case, including charges under section 302 of the Penal Code. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the exercise of such a discretionary power is solely guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and the evaluation of available evidence.
It is essential that such a legal decision remains untainted by any external or non-legal factors. The focus must stay strictly on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, to ensure the integrity of the judicial process is duly safeguarded.
With all due respect to the AG, the decision to pursue a murder charge appears, at least in my view, to be excessive and overly harsh.
While the loss of this young father is definitely a sad tragedy, it is difficult to see how his death could be considered intentional.
I firmly believe that mens rea — the essential element of criminal intent required for a murder conviction, is arguably absent in this case.
Be that as it may, pursuing a charge either under Section 304 of the Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) or Section 304A or under any relevant section of the Road Transport Act for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs would be, in my view, more prudent and just.
In light of the case’s sensitivity, this tragic accident mustn’t be viewed through a lens of racial tension.
Unfortunately, there are often opportunistic and irresponsible elements ready to exploit such events to further their own agendas, which only risks deepening social divisions.— April 5, 2026
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is a former deputy minister of law