.jpeg){kind=logo}
The tragic death of 2 brothers aged 2 and 3 after ingesting a snack laced with rat poison shocked the nation recently, causing public outcry.
The incident took place on 7 July at Kampung Padang Ubi in Kulim, Kedah, in which the 2 young victims had taken a packet of crackers containing rat poison that was hung on a garden fence to trap monkeys.
After ingesting the poisoned snack, the children started vomiting and foaming at the mouth. They were then taken to Malau Health Clinic before going to Kulim Hospital in critical condition.
Sadly, the elder brother died at about 8.30am at Penang Hospital on 10 July, while his younger brother died at 1.24pm on 12 July at the same hospital.
Since then, a 33-year-old suspect believed to be the garden owner has been placed under remand by the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) for allegedly putting the poisoned snack in the garden to assist in the investigation.
So, what action can be taken against the suspect for his alleged action? Read on as we delve into the relevant laws on the matter below.
Section 284 of the Penal Code
Based on what has been reported about the case, the most relevant law on the matter is Section 284 of the Penal Code for Negligent conduct with respect to any poisonous substance.
In a report by NST, the 33-year-old farmer was revealed to have no prior record, with a drug test conducted on him returned negative.
The suspect claimed that it was “impossible” for a child to reach the poisoned snack as it was securely tied at a height of 1.2 metres. Furthermore, he claimed that the fence where it was tied was not located near the road but closer to a monkey path area near the forest.
The rat poison itself was also found to be imported from China and unregistered, though the suspect claimed that it was commonly used by other farmers in the area and is available for purchase in Kulim or even online for just RM3.
Accordingly, action may be taken under Section 284 of the Penal Code below:
As you can see from the above provision, the suspect can be argued to have acted negligently with the poison substance in his possession to endanger human life.
Should the suspect be charged and convicted under this provision, he may face up to 6 months in jail or up to RM2,000 fine or both.
Do note that this is all theoretical, as should there be any other further development in the case, the suspect may be liable under other relevant provisions under the law.
However, as of the time of writing, the case is only being investigated under Section 284 of the Penal Code and Section 31(1) of the Child Act 2001.
Section 31(1) of the Child Act 2001
Speaking of which, it is unlikely for the suspect to be charged under Section 31(1) of the Child Act 2001, simply because the suspect was not the person having the care of the 2 victims.
Instead, as per what was reported, a charge under the said provision may be initiated against the victims’ mother who was supposed to supervise the victims during the incident.
Section 31(1) of the Child Act 2001 is as below:
Accordingly, it can be argued that the mother, being a person having the care of the children, had exposed the victims in a manner likely to cause them physical injury as per Section 31(1)(a).
Should she be charged under the provision, she may face a fine of up to RM50,000 or imprisonment of up to 20 years or both upon conviction.
Furthermore, as per Section 31(2) of the same Act, those charged under Section 31 may also be ordered by the Court to execute a bond with sureties to be of good behaviour for such period and on such conditions as the Court thinks fit and to perform community service. Those who fail to comply with the orders of the bond shall be liable to a further fine of up to RM10,000 or to an additional jail sentence not exceeding 5 years or both.
As for the aforementioned community service, it shall be between 36 hours and 246 hours in aggregate, as well as be performed within the period not exceeding 6 months from the date of order. It’s also subject to any other conditions specified by the Court and those who fail to perform the community service may be liable to a fine of up to RM10,000.
Of course, do take this with a grain of salt as the case is still under investigation and it’s now up to the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and the Public Prosecutor to decide what the best course of action will be.
For more insights into the Malaysian legal system such as this, do make sure to follow us on Facebook and Instagram or visit our official website. You can also read our articles on the popular Malaysian news aggregator app Newswav here.
About us
Ahmad Danial Iswatt & Luqman is an esteemed law firm that delivers best-in-class legal solutions to individuals, businesses and legal entities in Malaysia and beyond. We offer ease of mind to our wide range of clients by dismantling complex legal challenges with novel solutions through exceptional legal advisory and representation.
Our distinguished partners of diverse backgrounds and expertise have achieved significantly favourable results in all levels of courts in Malaysia, from high-profile civil and criminal litigation proceedings to complex cases in which the outcomes have become binding precedents for the laws of the country. Backed by a growing team of exceptional lawyers and capable support staff, we aspire to be at the forefront of the legal sphere to satisfy our clients’ dynamic demands and ever-increasing complexity.
ADIL Legal is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact Newswav.