Woman who ran amok spared jail
BY QISHIN TARIQ
|
|
PUTRAJAYA: The sword-wielding woman who ran amok outside the Prime Minister’s Department here two years ago has been ordered by the Sessions Court here to be sent to a mental institution.
The court accepted a psychiatric report that Muhdalena Ahmad, 30, was suffering from psychotic depression and was emotionally unstable at the time of the offence.
The court found Muhdalena guilty on all four charges against her but judge Mohamed Kamil Nizam refrained from giving the former International Islamic University of Malaysia student a custodial sentence.
Muhdalena and male friend Khalil Afandi Abdul Hamid, 47, caused a stir outside the department on July 9, 2012, when they stormed an auxiliary police post at the building and took a policeman hostage.
In the incident, Muhdalena was shot in the thigh by the police in self-defence but survived while Khalil Afandi died on the way to hospital after he was shot in the groin and hand.
Muhdalena was accused of committing criminal intimidation by threatening to cause grievous hurt to a policeman and possessing a sword.
She also faced two additional charges under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act.
Speaking to reporters in the courtroom after the verdict, Muhdalena said she would take the ruling positively as she did not feel it was a punishment.
“I am grateful not to be sent to prison. At the hospital I can get counselling,” she said, adding that she was currently on medication.
The mother of two said her husband and mother would help take care of her children while she was receiving treatment.
Muhdalena appeared relieved and was seen smiling as she was led away by bailiffs.
Earlier, invoking Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Mohamed Kamil ordered that she be kept in safe custody at Hospital Permai in Johor, where she will be held at the pleasure of the Sultan.
During closing submissions on May 15, DPP Nadia Izhar had said Muhdalena could not be let off the hook on the excuse of legal insanity.
Muhdalena’s counsel, M. Visvanathan, countered that the prosecution had no right to contradict medical evidence.
