Person has a later status after a terminal legal outcome: Acquittal upheld
REAL CASE · ACQUITTAL
Noritta Samsudin: when the prosecution case did not reach prima facie
A source-led reconstruction of the 2003 murder of Noritta Samsudin, the prosecution of Hanif Basree Abdul Rahman, the High Court acquittal without his defence being called, and the appellate decisions that left the acquittal intact.

Noritta Samsudin: when the prosecution case did not reach prima facie
Kuala Lumpur & Putrajaya, Malaysia · Dec 2003–28 Mar 2008
Person has a later status after a terminal legal outcome: Acquittal final
Hanif Basree charged with Noritta Samsudin's murder
Hanif was charged with murder and later claimed trial when the case was transferred to the High Court.

Charged with murder; the allegation remained to be proved.
The case in one view.
This summary always shows the latest overall state of the case. It does not change when the chronology above moves.
The Federal Court dismissed the prosecution's appeal, holding that the trial judge and Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the law.


Locations and movements represented in the full case record.
The main people and material needed to understand the case.


What remains unresolved?
- What additional primary court records can be added to document the High Court's evidentiary reasoning in full?
- What became of the forensic leads concerning the unidentified male evidence after Hanif's acquittal?
- Were any later suspects formally identified, charged or excluded in the continuing investigation?
How PulseKita handles a case.
- The prosecution theory is presented as allegation, not fact.
- The High Court acquittal is represented as a threshold finding: no prima facie case was established, so the defence was not called.
- Hanif's later appellate status never rewrites the fact that he remained acquitted throughout the prosecution appeals.
- The unresolved murder is kept separate from Hanif's final legal status.
- Forensic evidence is summarized only to the extent necessary to explain why the prosecution and defence differed.
Put the case beside the wider Malaysian numbers.
The case itself is established by its own evidence and court record. These datasets provide scale and context only; they do not explain motive, guilt or causation.
This case spans Dec 2003–28 Mar 2008. Some comparison series below describe more recent Malaysia-wide conditions because a directly comparable historical series is not available. PulseKita does not treat modern figures as if they were the rate at the time of the case.
How has lethal violence changed?
PulseKita keeps the crime-index murder count separate from the SDG intentional-homicide rate because the definitions and units are not interchangeable.
data.gov's crime_district series describes actual crimes where an offender was convicted. Keep it separate from newer investigation-paper counts.
Crime-index murder is a PDRM crime-index series. Do not splice it into the SDG intentional-homicide rate series.
The 2024 ICCS intentional-homicide count is shown as a separate snapshot because the open SDG rate series currently ends in 2022. The 2024 crime-index murder count is 236, while ICCS intentional homicide is 237; the two statistical concepts must remain separate.
Definitions changed across statistical products. PulseKita must label crime-index murder, ICCS homicide and SDG homicide rate separately.