Roslan Bin Awang Mohamaad v Prosecutor
Many people still think, “I didn’t hit anyone. I only said something.” The problem is, in criminal law, words can be weapons.
This case arose from a domestic dispute. A husband argued with his wife over overnight access arrangements and a divorce application. Emotions escalated. Tensions were high. In that moment, the accused pointed two knives while threatening to kill his wife if the divorce proceeded.
There was no physical contact.
No blood.
No actual injury.
Yet the case was still brought to court.
At trial, the accused argued that he had no real intention to injure or kill, and that the victim did not cry, scream, or run away — she merely froze. From his perspective, this supposedly showed there was no genuine fear.
The court rejected this argument entirely. The court explained that for the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the Penal Code, what matters is whether the threat was made with the intention to cause fear. The law does not require the victim to scream, shake, or faint to prove fear. Freezing in silence can also be a spontaneous reaction to fear.
More importantly, the court emphasised that actus reus does not require physical contact. In criminal intimidation, the act can be committed through words alone — especially when supported by conduct that reinforces the threat, such as brandishing or pointing a weapon. In this case, the verbal threat was reinforced by the act of pointing knives, witnessed by the victim and the children.
The court also found that mens rea was present. Criminal intent is not assessed based on what the accused says after the incident, but from the words used and the surrounding circumstances at the time the threat was made. Threatening to kill while holding knives is sufficient to demonstrate an intention to cause fear.
Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction under Section 503 read together with Section 506 of the Penal Code. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. However, taking into account family circumstances and the fact that the accused was a first-time offender, the custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine of RM10,000, failing which six months’ imprisonment would apply.
This case sends a very clear message. Criminal law does not wait until blood is spilled. It does not wait until there is a body. It does not wait until the victim is injured. Once a threat is made with the intention to cause fear — the offence is complete.
Lesson learned:
In emotionally charged conflicts — whether in family matters or business disputes — control your words and your actions. One wrong sentence, one threat uttered in anger, can turn a free person into a criminal offender.
And if you are facing threats, harassment, or intimidation — do not normalise it. Seek legal advice early. Because in law, prevention is always safer than defence after charges are brought.
