LAW555 - CASE SUMMARY

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

LAW555 - CRIMINAL LAW II

GROUP:
LWB04J

CASE SUMMARY

NAME STUDENT ID
NUR AMIRA MARLISA BINTI MOHD ANSORI 2021610048

PREPARED FOR:
SIR AHMAD SHUKREE BIN MHD SALLEH
Case 1
Atma Singh Kahan Singh v The State
AIR 1955 P H 191
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahandari, Falshaw
6th April 1955

Facts of The Case


The appellant's father, Kahan Singh, and the deceased's father, Bhagat Singh, both members of
the Jats of Vero Nang, had a disagreement over the irrigation of their respective lands.
Panchayat had been convened, so they met between 8 and 9 p.m. at a location close to their
homes to resolve the disagreement. The appellant, Atma Singh was present at the meeting, and
he and his father were armed with sticks and spears, respectively. However, it later escalated
into a heated argument between both parties, at which point the deceased's brothers, Shangara
Singh and Atma Singh, rushed to the meeting. Then, Atma Singh pierced the deceased on the
left side of his chest with a spear, while his brothers struck him with sticks. Later, medical
evidence revealed that the deceased died as a result of a spear wound to the chest that had
penetrated to a depth of 4 1/2 inches, injuring the left lung, diaphragm, and stomach along the
way. He also had three bruises on his back, which were apparently caused by stick blows. Atma
Singh, along with his father Kahan Singh and two brothers, Kartar Singh and Hazara Singh, was
tried under Section 302 by the Sessions Judge in Gurdaspur. However, his father and brothers
have already been exonerated. Therefore, only he is convicted under Section 302 of the Penal
Code and sentenced to death. Thus, Atma Singh, the appellant, has filed an appeal with this
court.

Held
The appeal by Atma Singh was allowed where the death sentence was not confirmed. Instead,
the judge sentenced Atma Singh to transportation for life.

Issue
The issue was hether the appellant could raise the fourth exception in Section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code, according to which culpable homicide does not amount to murder if it is

2
committed in the heat of the moment and without premeditation and in the course of a sudden
fight following upon a sudden quarrel.

Ratio Decidendi
The court concluded that there is no evidence indicating that the deceased intended to strike the
defendant. Nonetheless, the court determined that it is evident that Atma Singh speared
Shangara Singh in the heat of the moment, during a sudden argument, and that the murder was
not premeditated, given the circumstances. Consequently, the circumstance falls under the
fourth exception.

Principle of Law
Even though the deceased did not successfully exchange and aim blows, this still falls under the
fourth exception. This is due to the fact that the court considers whether or not the dispute was
premeditated and whether or not it occurred in the heat of the moment. Therefore, to constitute
a fight, blows must be considered. To qualify for the fourth exception, however, the accused
must demonstrate that the incident was not premeditated and that it was a sudden quarrel.

3
Case 2
Abdul Razak Bin Dalek v Public Prosecutor
[2010] MLJU 510
Federal Court (Putrajaya)
Raus Sharif FCJ, Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, James Foong Cheng Yuen FCJ
4th June 2010

Facts of The Case


The appellant was charged with murdering his wife, Rozita Binti Haron, on September 3, 2001,
in an unnumbered house in Parit Pecah, Parit Jawa, Muar, Johor, under section 302 of the Penal
Code. The deceased was found to have died from a fatal wound to her throat and a severed
carotid artery, both of which were caused by the appellant.

The death happened in the kitchen of Rokiah Binti Dawi (PW8) who is the appellant’s
sister-in-law. She was there when the accident happened, but she didn't witness the act. She said
that the deceased came to her house at 7:00 a.m. on the 3rd of September 2001 and ten minutes
later, the appellant arrived. The house of the appellant was 10 feet away from her own.

Based on the fact at the material time, the deceased had no longer lived with theappellant as she
had left him in June 2001. The day of the accident, the deceased had returned to her marital
home to check on her son, Mohd Rafiz (PW10), who was suffering from a fever. Coincidentally,
the PW8 and her husband, Mohd Yusof Bin Dalek (PW11), hosted a wedding ceremony for
their daughter at their residence. The deceased went to PW8's house the following morning
because she was unable to attend the ceremony held the day before.

According to PW8, she and the deceased were in the kitchen when the appellant arrived before
she went outside to the barn to retrieve 'nasi minyak' for the deceased. PW8 placed the 'nasi
minyak' on the stove prior to using the toilet. After returning from the toilet, PW8 observed the
appellant and the decedent standing at the kitchen door. As PW8 was heating up the "nasi
minyak", the deceased patted PW8 on the right shoulder, and PW8 observed blood on the
deceased and at the kitchen door. The decedent was barely able to walk before collapsing. PW8
observed blood on the appellant's neck at the same time he was hitting his head against the wall.

4
Another main witness was PW11. According to PW11, around 8:00 a.m. on September 3,
2001, he was cleaning some unwashed ot in the barn when he observed PW8 preparing 'nasi
minyak'. PW11 then inquired as to who would consume the 'nasi minyak,' to which PW8
responded that it was for the deceased. PW8 informed PW11 that the appellant was present at
their residence. Approximately ten minutes later, PW11 heard an argument inside their home
that he did not pay attention to because the appellant and the deceased frequently argued. Later,
however, PW11 heard the deceased calling PW8, prompting him to rush into the kitchen, where
he saw the deceased covered in blood and staggering before she collapsed.

Concurrently, PW11 observed the appellant holding a knife and pointing it at himself. When
PW11 attempted to seize the knife, the appellant stabbed himself in the neck, causing him to
collapse. Later, PW10 testified that the knife belonged to the appellant and that he had used it
for gardening purposes.

The High Court judge determined that the prosecution had made a prima facie case against the
appellant, and that the appellant had caused the deceased's injury. In addition, the court
determined that the deceased's bodily injuries, which were caused by the appellant, were
sufficient to cause death by natural causes. The Honourable High Court Judge determined that
the appellant's act of inflicting the injury was evidence of his intent to cause death.

The appellant then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which the court dismissed because
none of the grounds raised by the appellant had any merit.

Held
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant and the conviction of murder and
sentence to death imposed on the appellant by the High Court are therefore affirmed.

Issue
The issue was whether the appellant could raise the first exception in Section 300 of the Penal
Code, according to which culpable homicide does not amount to murder if it is committed
whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death
of the deceased who gave the provocation.

5
Ratio Decidendi
The issue concerned the defense of grave and sudden provocation. On this basis, the Federal
Court agrees with the trial judge and the Court of Appeal that the deceased's actions were
insufficient to constitute a grave and sudden provocation under the law, and that the appellant's
act of slitting the deceased's throat was clearly disproportionate to the alleged provocation.

The learned judge determined that the deceased's words and actions were not grave enough to
cause the appellant to lose his composure. On the basis of the case's facts and circumstances, he
determined that there was no grave and sudden provocation that would have rendered a
reasonable man incapable of self-control. The appellant was therefore found guilty. He was
convicted and sentenced to death.

Principle of Law
In evaluating the defence of grave and sudden provocation, the court will consider whether the
provocation was grave and sudden, the link between the provocation and the killing, the
existence of a cooling-off period, the proportionality of the retaliation in response to the
provocation, and the application of the Reasonable Man Test.

It is evident and confirmed by the courts that the appellant's wife's provocation was neither
severe nor sudden. Although the killing was connected to the provocation and there is no
evidence of a cooling-off period, the appellant's retaliation in response to the provocation is
disproportionate. Moreover, according to the Reasonable Man Test, a reasonable man will not
be deprived of his capacity for self-control when confronted with this type of provocation.

6
Case 3
Nasrul Annuar Bin Abd Samad v PP
[2005] 1 MLJ 619
High Court (Kuala Lumpur)
Augustine Paul JCA
23rd October 2004

Facts of The Case


The defendant was charged with the crime of rape against the victim (PW3), who was 14 years
and 3 months old at the time of the crime. He was found guilty and subsequently sentenced.
accused then appealed. He asserted that the prosecution had failed to prove penetration because
PW3's testimony during her direct examination had been refuted during her cross-examination.
PW3 testified that, at the time of the alleged rape, she did not see anything from her stomach
down, and that she only assumed that the accused's penis had entered her private area.

Held
There was no justification for PW3's presumption of penetration. In light of PW3's vague
testimony in her cross-examination, which was not adequately explained in her re-examination,
it was unwise to rely on her testimony. Therefore, there was no clear evidence that the accused's
penis had penetrated her private region. In light of the nature of her testimony, the doctor who
examined PW3 (PW1) did not find the fresh tear to be corroborative because the evidence
intended to corroborate was deficient. The evidence of PW1 cannot therefore be used to support
the evidence of PW3.

The court view that the prosecution had failed to establish the element of penetration. Thus, the
appeal by the accused is allowed and quashed the conviction and sentence.

Issue
The issue was whether the accused could be charged with an offence of rape with the vague
evidence of penetration by the accused that is advanced by PW3.

7
Ratio Decidendi
The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel was that the prosecution had not proven
the issue of penetration, as everything PW3 said in her direct examination regarding this issue
had been demolished in her cross-examination. During cross-examination, PW3 confirmed that
she did not see what occurred beneath her stomach and that she only assumed that the accused
was responsible for the penetration. It could have been anything that had made its way into her
private region. In any event, a presumption cannot be considered proof of a fact. A conclusion
must be supported by evidence or inferences drawn from evidence.

Futher, there is also no basis for PW3's assumption. Her ambiguous answers were not subjected
to a thorough re-examination. The purpose of this examination is to provide the witness with an
opportunity to explain any portion of his testimony given in cross-examination that could be
interpreted negatively. It is risky to rely on PW3's testimony due to the hazy evidence she
presented in her cross-examination, which has not been adequately explained in her
re-examination. In addition, her credibility must be evaluated in light of her admission during
cross-examination that she filed the police report out of fear of being reprimanded and beaten
by her family. Her testimony that she was a virgin before the incident is not supported by the
testimony of PW1, who stated that PW3 had an old tear. Therefore, there is no clear evidence
that the accused's penis had penetrated her private area. In light of the nature of her testimony,
PW1's discovery of a fresh tear on her is of no corroborational value, as the evidence it is
intended to corroborate is deficient.

Principle of Law
In constituting the sexual intercourse to the offence of rape, it is sufficient to provethat
penetration had occurred as according to Section 375 of the Penal Code. In addition, it is
important to note that the man's penis must penetrate the woman's vagina.

It is evident and confirmed by the court that the penetration by the accused is not proven by
PW3, as she did not see anything happen to her from her stomach down and only assumed it
was the penis of the accused that entered her private area.

You might also like