Malaysian Teen Acquitted of Schoolgirl’s Murder on Grounds of Insanity

A 15-year-old Malaysian boy has been acquitted of murdering a 16-year-old schoolgirl after the High Court in Shah Alam ruled that he was legally insane at the time of the fatal attack.

Contents

Fatal attack took place at school Court accepts schizophrenia evidence Teenager ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment Defence had relied on insanity plea Murder charge could not result in death penalty Case raises difficult questions about mental illness Sources

The teenager was accused of fatally stabbing his schoolmate at a secondary school in Bandar Utama, Selangor, in October 2025. Judge Adlin Abdul Majid found that the defence had successfully established temporary insanity under Section 84 of Malaysia’s Penal Code. 

Fatal attack took place at school

The incident happened on October 14, 2025, when the boy was 14 and the victim was 16.

The schoolgirl was fatally stabbed in a girls’ toilet at a secondary school in Bandar Utama. The teenager was subsequently charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

The prosecution called 11 witnesses during the trial, while the defence presented two, including the teenager and a forensic psychiatrist.

Court accepts schizophrenia evidence

The central issue at trial was not whether the teenager had carried out the physical act, but whether he was mentally capable of understanding his actions at the time.

Defence lawyer Kitson Foong said the court accepted evidence from Dr Ian Lloyd, a psychiatrist at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, who testified about the teenager’s schizophrenia and mental state.

According to the defence, the teenager had experienced severe symptoms, including delusions, hearing voices and believing that he was a god. The court ultimately accepted that he was not of sound mind when the attack occurred.

Teenager ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment

Although the court acquitted the teenager, he was not simply released.

The judge ordered that he be held at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta in Perak for psychiatric treatment. His detention will continue at the pleasure of the Ruler, with medical authorities responsible for assessing his condition and treatment.

The teenager is expected to receive medication and counselling until doctors determine that he is fit to return to society.

Judge Adlin also warned him about the seriousness of what had happened and urged him not to take his second chance at freedom for granted.

Defence had relied on insanity plea

The defence had previously indicated that psychiatric evidence would form the foundation of its case.

During proceedings in August, the teenager expressed remorse over the death of his schoolmate. His lawyer said the defence was relying on expert psychiatric evidence to support the argument that he was of unsound mind.

The psychiatrist told the court that the teenager had suffered from mental illness and delusions for several years, with the defence arguing that gaps in treatment could have worsened his condition.

Murder charge could not result in death penalty

Because the accused was under 18 when the alleged murder occurred, Malaysian law prevented the death penalty from being imposed even if he had been convicted.

Under Section 97 of the Child Act 2001, a person under 18 cannot be sentenced to death. Instead, the court can order detention under the terms set out in the legislation.

In this case, however, the court found that the insanity defence had been established and recorded an acquittal.

Case raises difficult questions about mental illness

The verdict highlights the difficult balance courts must strike when serious crimes involve young defendants with severe mental illness.

The ruling does not mean the court considered the death of the schoolgirl insignificant. Rather, it reflects the legal principle that criminal responsibility depends in part on a person’s mental state at the time of an alleged offence.

The teenager will now remain under psychiatric care, while the victim’s death continues to weigh heavily on the school and wider community.

For the families involved, the verdict closes one chapter of a deeply distressing case, while raising difficult questions about mental-health treatment, juvenile justice and how society should respond when severe mental illness and violent crime intersect.