Download - Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
1/33
M A L A YM A L A Y
S I AS I A
IN THEIN THECOURTCOURT
OFOF
APPEALAPPEALHolden in the Federal Territory of Putrajaya
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. P-05(S)-[110&111]-05/12
BETWEEN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...APPELLANT
AND
MOHD AZAM RAJA BIN ABDULLAH...RESPONDENT
(In the matters of Criminal Appeal No. 45-4-2011
Before the High Court of Malaya in Georgetown,Penang)
BETWEEN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
1
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
2/33
And
MOHD AZAM RAJA BIN ABDULLAH
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSWRITTEN SUBMISSIONSOF THE PUBLICOF THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTORPROSECUTOR
TABLE OF CONTENTABLE OF CONTENT PAGEAGE1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE 5
3. THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL 8
3.1 Whether the presence of stolen items
belonging to the deceased indicates that the
respondent is responsible for the death of the
deceased 9
3.2 Whether the appellant succeeded in raising
any reasonable doubt against the murder
charge 22
2
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
3/33
4. CONCLUSION 24
If it pleases your Lordships
1. INTRODUCTION
The respondent was charged at the instance of the
Public Prosecutor before the High Court of Malaya
sitting in Georgetown, Penang for an offence of murder
3
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
4/33
under section 302 Penal Code and the charge is as
follows
Bahawa kamu pada 2.3.2010, jam lebih kurang di antara 5.00
pagi hingga 9.00 pagi di rumah No. 34, Jalan Gurdwara, di
dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang telah
melakukan kesalahan membunuh Soh Lian Thye [No. KPT
340122-02-5072] dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah
melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.
His Lordship, the Learned High Court Judge amended
the charge at the end of the prosecutions case to one
under section 457 Penal Code to the following charge
Bahawa kamu pada 2.3.2010, jam lebih kurang di antara 5.00
pagi hingga 9.00 pagi di rumah No. 34, Jalan Gurdwara, di
dalam Daerah Timur Laut, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang telah
melakukan pecah rumah dengan memasuki bangunan
tersebut kepunyaan Soh Lian Thye [No. KPT 340122-02-5072]
yang digunakan sebagai tempat kediaman manusia, untukmelakukan suatu kesalahan tertentu yang boleh dihukum
dengan hukuman penjara iaitu kesaiahan mencuri 3 utas
rantai tangan bernilai antara RM100.00 hingga RM200.00 dan
oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan
yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 457 Kanun Keseksaan.
4
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
5/33
The amended charge was marked P2A.
P 2A was read and explained to the accused. He
pleaded guilty thereto and understood the nature and
consequences of his plea.
His Lordship found the appellant guilty, convicted and
sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment term with
effect from the date of arrest and also 16 strokes of
whipping.
The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the said
acquittal.
5
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
6/33
2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE
My Lords
The facts of the case may be surmised as follows
On 2 March 2010 at about 7.30 am, Mr Lim Beng Keong woke up,
and he went down to the ground floor to look for the deceased.
He then tried to open the door at the kitchen of his house to look for
his wife (the deceased) but failed because there was another person
on the other side who blocked the door. He saw a pair of hands of a
dark skinned person holding a piece of wood on the other side of
the door.
Mr Lim became frightened when he saw the pair of hands and
rushed upstairs to his brothers room (Lim Lean Kheong) who was
still asleep and locked the door. He went to the window and cried
6
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
7/33
out for help to neighbours and the public that there is a thief in his
house.
Mr Ong Kor Peng who was on duty as a Community Policing Unit
(RELA) at the time, received the information through his wireless
communication set (walkie-talkie) at about 8.30 am of the entry of
the thief into the house. When Mr Ong arrived at the scence of the
incident, he saw the window above the shop house of Mr Lim Beng
Keong and heard Mr Lim crying out for help.
Mr Ong went to the back portion of the shop house to inspect but
found nothing there. When he heard Mr Lim Beng Keongs attempt
to jump through the front window, he went to the front area of the
shop to assist but getting a ladder to help Mr Lim out.
At that time, he also received information that the thief has escaped
but running through the roof of the shop house. Mr Ong ran after
the thief and saw the thief jumping down from the roof of the far
end of the row of linked shop houses. Mr Ong managed to catch the
thief but only after a scuffle because the thief fought back to free
himself.
The thief turned out to be the appellant.
There were blood stains at the elbow and abrasion wounds on his
hands. A physical search on the body of the appellant was made
and an identity card was found which was later surrendered to the
police MPV.
7
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
8/33
After the appellant was apprehended, Mr Lim Beng Keong came
down to the ground floor of the house to look for the deceased.
There she was, lying down at the toilet of the ground floor.
The appellant was later taken to Jalan Patani Police Station where
the police made a body search and found a watch and 3 bracelets.
A forensic team was called to the scene of the incident where swabs
were taken of blood traces found and a few other items from the
scene of the incident.
The body of the deceased was brought to the Penang Hospital,
where it was identified by Mr Lim Beng Keong. A post mortem
revealed that that the cause of death was SEVERE HEAD INJURY
DUE TO BLUNT TRAUMA TO THE HEAD.
His Lordship, the Learned High Court Judge found that
the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case
against the appellant under section 302 Penal Code but
found that there is prima facie evidence against the
appellant under section 457 Penal Code and His
Lordship, the Learned High Court Judge amended the
charge at the end of the prosecutions case to one
under section 457 Penal Code.
8
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
9/33
The amended charge was marked P2A.
P 2A was read and explained to the accused. He
pleaded guilty thereto and understood the nature and
consequences of his plea.
His Lordship found the appellant guilty, convicted andsentenced him to 14 years imprisonment term with
effect from the date of arrest and also 16 strokes of
whipping.
9
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
10/33
3. THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL
My Lords
The issues may be enumerated as follows
3.1 Whether the presence of stolen items belonging to
the deceased indicates that the respondent is
responsible for the death of the deceased
3.2 the appellant succeeded in raising any reasonable
doubt against the murder charge
We shall address the issues accordingly.
10
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
11/33
3.1 Whether the presence of stolen items
belonging to the deceased indicates that the
respondent is responsible for the death of the
deceased
My Lords
The facts of this case is in pari passu to the case of
KRISHNA RAO GURUMURTHI v.
PP AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2009] 2 CLJ 603 where
the finding of the bodies of the first three victims at No.
82, Laluan Tasek Timur 16, Taman Seri Dermawan,
Bercham, Ipoh was the result of the initial investigation
by the police after Harminderjit Singh (PW33) lodged a
police report of what he saw at around 1am on 13
11
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
12/33
March 1998. PW33 was on his way for supper when he
was attracted by the sound of the burglar alarm that
went off in the jewellery shop known as Kedai Emas
Chitra. He also saw a Proton Iswara with registration no.
PCV 7749 parked outside the shop with a person inside
seated on the driver's seat. Subsequently two other
persons came out of the jewellery shop. The parked car
then left the vicinity with PW33 following but only to
lose it along Jalan Gopeng. The bodies found were that
of victim 2, the wife of Nalliah Periasamy (PW26) who
was the owner of the jewellery shop, his son victim 1
and the maid, victim 3. All had been brutally killed with
victim 1 and victim 3 tied up with red and yellow fibred
rope. PW26 was away in India at that time attending to
his other son's graduation. On the morning of 12 March
1998 victim 2 and victim 3 came to the shop and were
seen returning home in the evening on the same day.
In the house the police did not find the keys to the shop
which were normally kept by victim 2. However two
blood stained blades (exh. P12A and P24A) which came
from a pair of scissors were found. One of them had its
end broken. Investigation by the police in the shop
revealed that there was no forced entry. But the
padlocks found inside the shop still had the keys
attached to them. All the jewellery in the shop were
12
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
13/33
missing. By midday on 13 March 1998 the police
managed to arrest two suspects, namely the 2nd
appellant and the 3rd accused at No. 14A, Lahat Lane,
Ipoh. Subsequently on the same day the 1st appellant
was arrested at Room 502, Hotel Ritz Kowloon, Ipoh.
Two vehicles one of which was seen by PW33 parked
outside the shop the night before were also seized by
the police on the same day . While being questioned by
the police after his arrest the 1st appellant gave certain
information and led the police to the discovery of the
body of victim 4, the watchman of the jewellery shop.
His body was also tied with red and yellow fibred rope.
Cautioned statements from all the arrested persons
were also recorded by the police. However the trial
judge did not admit any of them as evidence. About a
day and the half after he had given his cautioned
statement to the police the 2nd appellant gave certain
information and led the police to the area known as
Baling Bom as it was used by the Police Field Force Ulu
Kinta to dispose of hand grenades. There the police
discovered items of the jewellery that had been
removed from the jewellery shop. Incidentally the 2nd
appellant was previously a member of the Police Field
Force.
13
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
14/33
One of the issue was that whether the murder
committed in the cause of a robbery may bring
an inference that the thief is the murderer. The
Federal Court has this, to say, inter alia,
[50] Although there was a reference by the learned trial
judge to s. 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 he was in fact
relating to factual inferences based on the given
circumstantial evidence adduced. In our opinion he was
perfectly entitled to do so. It is not a case of where the
learned trial judge cast upon the appellants, in particular
the 2nd appellant, the burden of proof so that they have to
establish probability in their favour. Neither is it a case of
being merely in possession of the jewellery which made the
2nd appellant guilty for the murders. This is a case of where
the theft and murder are taken as one transaction. As such
it is the cumulative effects of each of the circumstantial
evidence adduced that were considered. We do not find any
error in such approach. After all finding facts by way of
inferences from sets of primary proved facts is a common
task for a trial court. It is trite law that an appellate courtwill not disturb finding of facts of a trial court based on
inferences from primary facts if such inferences, having
regards to the evidence and circumstances, are reasonable.
[51] The Court of Appeal took the same course albeit no
reference to the said section. 'One does not pass from the
14
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=1ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=1ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=1ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
15/33
realm of conjecture into the realm of inference until some
fact is found which positively suggests, that is to say
provides a reason, special to the particular case under
consideration, for thinking it likely that in that actual case aspecific event happened or a specific state of affairs
existed.' (See: Jones v. Dunkel [1958-59] 101 CLR 298).
[52] Learned counsel for the 2nd appellant argued that the
theft and murders should not be taken as one transaction.
Gleaned from that perspective learned counsel contended
that the defence of the 2nd appellant should not even have
been called. Such argument is only plausible if the version
of the 2nd appellant on the event is believed. However the
learned trial judge who had the advantage of listening and
seeing him in the witness box disbelieved it. He gave
reasons for his findings which we do not find unreasonable
or irrational. Thus, being an appellate court we shouldtherefore be slow in disturbing such finding of facts . (See:
Nathan v . Public Prosecutor [1972] 1 LNS 99).
In our instant appeal, the appellant was found by his
Lordship, the Learned Trial Judge to be in possession of
bracelets, belonging to the deceased in the following
words,
However, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has
15
http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1969626625&SearchId=1ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1969626625&SearchId=1ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
16/33
succeeded to prove a case of house breaking with the intention to
commit theft and in fact theft of three pieces of bracelets valued
between RM100.00 to RM200.00 was committed, an offence under s
457 of the Penal Code.
The bracelets were seized by the police from the accuseds
right trousers pocket. The bracelets were identified by the
deceaseds daughter, SP 7 as hers. SP 7 kept her costume
jewelleries in the wardrobe in the bedroom, she shared with the
deceased.
I have no doubt, by way of inference that the accused has
entered the deceaseds house at No. 34, Jalan Gurdwara,
Georgetown and stole the said bracelets and thereafter exited from
the said premises. The accused has, therefore, committed house
breaking and theft of three bracelets, an offence under s 457 of the
Penal Code.
By the high authority of
KRISHNA RAO GURUMURTHI (supra) that is, This
is a case of where the theft and murder are taken
as one transaction. As such it is the cumulative
effects of each of the circumstantial evidence
adduced that were considered.... which brings to
the point that the 2 offences are so related that it is not
16
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
17/33
reasonable to separate them very much akin to that of
a Siamese twin.
The High Court in PP v. KRISHNA RAO GURUMURTHI
& ORS [2000] 1 CLJ 446, his Lordship, the Learned
High Court Judge has this to say (which was confirmed
by Court of Appeal and Federal Court)
The Law On Presumptions
By themselves the information were incapable of inculpating
the accused with the charges. But in assessing the case for
the prosecution the court is obliged to apply deductive
reasoning to draw such inferences or to arrive at such
factual presumptions as necessary from these information.
The power to do so has always been an integral tool of trade
of a court of law. Nevertheless, in our jurisdiction the power has
been written into our law of evidence in the form of s. 114 of the
Evidence Act 1950which provides as follows:
114. Court may presume existence of certain fact
The court may presume the existence of any fact
which it thinks likely to have happened, regard
being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct, and public and private
17
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
18/33
business, in their relation to the facts of the
particular case.
Illustrations
The court may presume -
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen
goods soon after the theft is either the thief or
has received the stolen goods knowing them to
be stolen, unless he can account for his
possession;
((b) to (j) i to x not relevant for the present consideration.)
The instances which the court may draw such presumptions are
inexaustive. There is no precedent here in our jurisdiction where a
presumption under the main section of s. 114 is drawn in a case
falling within the factual matrix of this trial, although there is one
where a presumption had been drawn under the provision of
illustration (a) to which I shall revert to later in this judgment
To provide the necessary persuasive authority to make my point
therefore, I have to rely on a series of Indian authorities with
respect to their interpretation of s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act
1872 which is in para-material with the same section of our own
Evidence Act 1950.
18
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
19/33
In RE MADUGULA JERMIAH [1957] AIR Andhra Pradesh 611.
(Subra Rao, CJ and Bhimasankaram, J) the Supreme Court of India
said that:
Section 114 deals with presumptions of fact. The
section enables a Judge to infer one fact from the
existence of another proved fact having regard to the
common course of natural events or human conduct.
The illustrations given to the section are not
exhaustive. The Court may always rely on the main
section in regard to a different set of facts or
combination of facts to draw the presumption
embodied in that section. As the section only enables a
rule of guidance evolved out of human experience, it
gives as option to the Judge whether to draw such a
presumption or not having regard to the circumstances
of each case.
Having said this the Supreme Court went on to hold that:
It is an established rule that, if murder and robbery
form parts of the same transaction, a presumption may
be drawn against the accused for murder if he is found
to be in possession of the jewels worn by the deceased
in the absence of a reasonable explanation by him .
The ruling was however predicated by a strong caution, for thecourt went on to say:
19
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
20/33
But as the presumption is one of fact, great care must
be taken before drawing a presumption particularly in
the case of a serious offence on slender material for it
would be a leap in the dark with disastrous
consequences. Unless, therefore, some definite fact
connecting the accused with the murder is established,
the Courts should be chary to draw the presumption of
murder from the mere fact of possession of the articles
worn or in the possession of the deceased.
The rationale for drawing such a presumption however was
explained in another case - in the judgment of Devadoss J (in a
panel of three) in the Madras High Court case of SOGAIMUTHU
PADAYACHI V. KING EMPEROR, ILR 50 Mad 274 (AIR [1926] Mad
638) where he said:
If a person who retires to bed in a normal state of
health is found next morning lying dead and his safe
rifled and his valuables stolen and if it comes to light
that the man did not die a natural death, but was
murdered and that if the property which was in thesafe shortly before the murder is found in the
possession of persons who are unable to account for
them the jury is entitled to draw the inference and the
law requires them to draw the inference that the
persons in possession of such property are not only the
thieves but also murderers. If the persons with whom
the stolen property is found have an explanation to
20
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
21/33
offer which explanation if accepted would prove them
to be innocent, it is for them to offer it.
Another Indian case of high authority that may serve to illustrate
the point further is WASIM KHAN V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[1956] Supreme Court Reports 191. In that case, the deceased, a
shopkeeper had gone to Lucknow to purchase goods for his shop.
Having purchased the goods, on the return journey he engaged the
appellant to carry the goods from the railway station to his village of
Jarwal by using the appellant's cart. Along with the deceased two
other persons also got on the cart.
The cart and the goods did not reach Jarwal which was situated
some distance away from the railway station. The body of the
deceased was found near a bridge the next morning. On the 4th day
of the occurence, following police interrogation, the appellant
handed over the personal belongings including the goods of the
deceased to the police. In his defence the appellant had explained
that three men had come to look for the deceased at the bridge.
The deceased had gone off with them and had asked the appellant
to wait for him at the bridge. When the deceased did not turn up he
decided to take the goods back to his house, and had eventually
handed them over to the police.
The Sessions Court of Bahraich rejected his explanation and
convicted the appellant. On appeal the High Court of Allahabad
upheld the conviction. Upon further appeal the Supreme Court of
India (comprising of B.P. Sinha, Jafer Imam and Chandrasekhara
Aiyar, JJ,) dismissed the appeal. It ruled that:
21
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
22/33
Possession of recent and unexplained possession
of the stolen property while it would be
presumptive evidence against a prisoner on the
charge of robbery would similarly be evidenceagainst him on the charge of murder.
In making the ruling, Imam J writing for their Lordships of the
Supreme Court, reviewed a number of Indian authorities. For the
persuasive value that they carry, I propose to reproduce them in
this judgment to illustrate the legitimacy to which the presumption
under s. 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 can be drawn against an
accused who is found in possession of the belongings of a deceased
victim - a fortiorari, where the accused is found with the corpus of
the deceased.
In THE EMPEROR V. SHEIK NEAMATULLA ([1913] 17 CWN 1077)
the accused was found to be in possession of stolen property
belonging to a deceased. Sir Lawrence Jenkins J in that case after
referring to s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, approved the
following passage from Wills on Circumstantial Evidence:
possession of stolen goods recently after the loss of
them, may be indicative not merely of the offence of
larceny, or of receiving with guilty knowledge, but of
any other more aggravated crime which had been
connected with theft. This particular fact of
presumption commonly forms also a material element
of evidence in cases of murder; which special
22
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
23/33
application of it has often been emphatically
recognised.
In dealing with a similar factual situation in QUEEN - EMPRESS V.
SAMI AND ANOTHER [1890] ILR 13 Mad. 426, the learned judges
of the High Court observed that:
Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any
explanation, the presumption arises that any one who
took part in a robbery also took part in the murder. In
cases in which murder and robbery have been shown
to form parts of one transaction, it has been held that
recent and unexplained possession of the stolen
property while it would be presumptive evidence
against the prisoner against the charge of robbery
would similarly be evidence against him on a charge of
murder. All the facts which tell against the appellant,
especially his conduct indicating a consciousness of
guilt, point equally to the conclusion that he was guilty
as well of the murder as of the robbery ...
In EMPEROR V. CHINTAMONI SHAHU AIR [1930] Cal. 379, the
same opinion was expressed by the High Court that:
The possession of stolen goods recently after the
loss of them may be indicative not merely of the
offence of larceny or of receiving with guiltyknowledge but of any other more aggravated
23
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
24/33
crime which has been connected with theft; this
particular fact of presumption forms also a
material element of evidence in the case of
murder.
In fairness to the defence, I must pause here to recall the former
Court of Appeal case of ABDULLAH BIN SAAD V. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR [1955] 1 LNS 3; [1956] MLJ 92 wherein it was held
that a presumption in respect of the possession of stolen goods
under illustration (a) (as opposed to drawing a presumption under
the main provision) ofs. 114 of the Evidence Act 1950had not been
made out.
In that case the deceased met his death on 15 May 1955. It wasproved that on 16 May 1955 appellant pawned some jewellery
which belonged to the deceased. Apart from this piece of evidence,
there was nothing to connect the appellant with the crime.
Nevertheless the High Court convicted him on murder. On appeal
the Court of Appeal, (Mathew CJ delivering the judgment of the
Court) held that this did not provide sufficient evidence on which to
found a conviction for murder as it was not certain that thejewellery were on the deceased's person on the day of his death.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.
The Abdullah bin Saad case was applied by Mohamed Azmi SCJ later
in the Supreme Court case ofNG THIAN SOONG V. PP [1990] 1
CLJ 202 (Rep); [1990] 1 CLJ 1107 [1990] 2 MLJ 148 to reinforce the
already known principle of caution relating to circumstancial
24
http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1557334529&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1557334529&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1557334529&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2398355969&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2398355969&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2398355969&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2398355969&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1557334529&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=1557334529&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2398355969&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus()http://dispcase%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2398355969&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayCase%27,%27%27);DispCase.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
25/33
evidence similar to that enunciated in RE MADUGULA JERMIAH
(supra), wherein at p. 150 His Lordship said:
where the strands of circumstantial evidence
connecting the accused with the crime are capable of
more than one inference, it is not sufficient for the trial
judge merely to tabulate the indirect evidence. He
must go one step further by directing the jury what
other reasonable inferences could be drawn from each
strand of circumstantial evidence, and leaving it to the
jury to decide which inference they wish to adopt. It is
only when the combined strength of these inferences
accepted by the jury when twisted together is strong
enough to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt
that a finding could be arrived at the guilt of the
accused.
I must admit that the facts in the Indian court cases are not on all
fours with the facts in the present trial. But they serve to
demonstrate the legitimacy of drawing presumptions in similar
circumstances where the accused are implicated through the
production of belongings of persons whom he is accused of killing.
The Abdullah bin Saad case on the other hand can be distinguished
on the facts. In that case the prosecution did not rely on any
information under s. 27 of the Evidence Act 1950. It was relying
merely on the proof that the jewellery was pawned by the accused
25
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=27.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=27.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
26/33
thereby leaving open the question of how he could have come by it.
In the instant trial however, the presumptions that may be drawn
arose not only from the discovery of the body and the jewellery but
also from the information provided by accused themselves.
The Presumptions That Must Be Drawn
The presumption that must be drawn against the 1st
accused unders. 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 from the fact
of the discovery is that he had killed the watchman.
By reason that the same type of strings used to tie the
watchman was similar to the ones used to tie up the boy
and the maid in the house, and considering that their
killings were executed in the same transaction as the killing
of the woman, it must be presumed that he had also killed
the boy, the maid and the woman at the house.
The presumptions that must be drawn against the 2nd accused
under the provision ofs. 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 are that:
(a) that he was in possession of the jewellery;
(b) that he was the person who stole the jewellery
from the locked safe in the shop;
26
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
27/33
(c) that he had killed the watchman as the stolen
jewellery was at that time in the control of the
watchman;
(d) that he had also killed the woman in the house as
to obtain the jewellery in the shop he must first obtain
the key to the safe which had always been in the
possession of the woman deceased in the house. This
is clear from the evidence of Nalliah the owner of
Chitra Jewellery (PW26).
(e) that he had also killed the boy and the maid in the
house as their killings were in the same transaction.
His Lordship held that " The presumption that must
be drawn against the 1st accused under s. 114 of
the Evidence Act 1950 from the fact of the
discovery is that he had killed the watchman. Byreason that the same type of strings used to tie
the watchman was similar to the ones used to tie
up the boy and the maid in the house, and
considering that their killings were executed in
the same transaction as the killing of the woman,
it must be presumed that he had also killed the
27
http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus()http://dispact%3Dwindow.open%28%27/Members/DisplayAct.aspx?ActCode=MY_FS_ACT_1971_56&ActSectionNo=114.&SearchId=3ag07%27,%27_DisplayAct%27,%27%27);DispAct.focus() -
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
28/33
boy, the maid and the woman at the house.... is
the reason the interwining of the 2 facts together that
cannot be ignored by choice or otherwise.
At the risk of being repetitive, the Federal Court
reiterated This is a case of where the theft and
murder are taken as one transaction. As such it
is the cumulative effects of each of the
circumstantial evidence adduced that were
considered.... which conclude in our instant appeal
that the appellant is indeed the murderer.
28
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
29/33
3.2 the appellant succeeded in raising any
reasonable doubt against the murder charge
My Lords
In MUNIANDY A/L SUBRAMANIAM V PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR [2006] 6 MLJ 623, a decision of the
Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Federal Court
recently, it was held at page 638 para F, inter alia:
An appeal is merely a continuation of the trial and throws
open all the evidence to re-examination in order to
determine whether or not the various findings of the trial
court are correct(see Tan Boon Teck v Public Prosecutor [1950]
MLJ 44).
29
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
30/33
MOHD JOHI SAID & ANOR V PP [2005] 1 CLJ 389 ,
His Lordship Court of Appeal Justice Gopal Sri Ram
stressed at page 397 para d, inter alia:
Unlike civil appeals, where the appellant carries the burden
of showing that the judge at first instance went wrong, in a
criminal case the duty of the court is to consider whether
the conviction is right. The correct approach is therefore not
whether the decision is wrong but whether the conviction is
safe...(Emphasis ours)
In view of the fact that the offence committed by the
Respondent was one of murder and applying the
principles as enunciated by the cases aforesaid, the
public interest would warrant that this appeal to be
heard on its merits
We ask my Lords to do likewise.
4 CONCLUSION
My Lords
30
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
31/33
We cannot do better than quote the case of RAMLI
KECHIK V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1986] 1 CLJ 308,
where the Supreme Court quoted the case of Reg v
Sang to explain justice in a criminal trial, inter alia,
...Lord Goddard's dictum could not be understood by many but it
was restored to its rightful position by Lord Diplock in Reg. v. Sang
[1980] AC 402 at 437 where in delivering the main judgment of the
House of Lords he held at p. 437:
Save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with
regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commissions of
the offence, the Judge has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant
evidence on the ground that is was obtained by improper or unfair
means.
Earlier on, at p. 436, His Lordship also made the following statement
on the constitution of a fair trial:
... the fairness of a trial according to law is not all one-
sided; it requires that those who are undoubtedly guilty
should be convicted as well as that those about whose guilt
there is any reasonable doubt should be acquitted.(emphasis
ours)
My Lords
31
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
32/33
The evidence against the respondent is just
overwhelming.
We ask this Honourable Court to set aside the order of
discharge and acquittal by the High Court and order
that the respondent to enter on his defence on the
original charge under Section 302 Penal Code
With that, we rest our submissions, unless we can be of
further assistance to your Lordships.
Much Obliged
Datedat the Federal Territory of Putrajaya this 18th day
of April in the year 2013
By the authority of the Public Prosecutor,
AWANG ARMADAJAYA BIN AWANG MAHMUD
Deputy Public Prosecutor
M A L A Y S I A
32
-
7/30/2019 Mohd Azam Raja-Submissions COA
33/33
The address for service of the Respondent is: ThePublic Prosecutor, Appellate and Trial Division,5th Floor, Attorney Generals Chambers, Block4G7, Precinct 4, The Federal GovernmentAdministrative Centre, 62100 Putrajaya