Investigation of Crime Part 2: Muhamad Helmi MD Said Tatacara Jenayah 1 UUK4033

Investigation of
Crime Part 2
Muhamad Helmi Md Said
Tatacara Jenayah 1 UUK4033
S.111 Police officer’s power to require
attendance of witnesses
(1)A police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter may by order in writing require the attendance
before himself of any person being within the limits of the
police district in which he is making an investigation who
from the information given or otherwise appears to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and that
person shall attend as so required.
(2)If any such person refuses to attend as so required that
police officer may report such refusal to a Magistrate who
may thereupon in his discretion issue a warrant to secure
the attendance of that person as required by such order.
Scope of S.111
O This provision allows a police officer to issue
a written order to any person who is
acquainted with the circumstances of the
case under his investigation to appear before
him irrespective of whether that person is
within the limits of the police district in which
he is making the investigation.
O Failure to comply with the order under the
CPC, s 111(1) may give rise to criminal
liability under the Penal Code, s 174.
O Order in subsection (1) must be served by the
investigating officer In Uthayakumar a/l
Ponnusamy v Pendakwa Raya & Ors [2005] 6
AMR 311; [2005] 7 CLJ 466
-The High Court in cancelling UK11 and declaring
the applicant’s arrest and detention there under
unlawful said the “police officer” who issues the
order under s 111(1) and the “police officer” who
reports a refusal to comply to a magistrate under
subsection (2) of the same, is intended to be the
same person, who in turn must be the investigating
officer, which in this instance was DSP Gan as
borne out by his own admission in UK11. UK9
should have been served by DSP Gan himself.
O Subsection (2) Where a person fails or refuses
to obey the written order issued under
subsection (1), the police officer issuing the
order may refer the matter to a magistrate who
may then issue a warrant of arrest to secure
the attendance of such person.
S.112: Examination of witnesses
by police
O (1)A police officer making a police investigation under this
Chapter may examine orally any person supposed to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and shall
reduce into writing any statement made by the person so
examined.
O (2)Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to
the case put to him by that officer:
O Provided that such person may refuse to answer any question the
answer to which would have a tendency to expose him to a
criminal charge or penalty or forfeiture.
O (3)A person making a statement under this section shall be legally
bound to state the truth, whether or not such statement is made
wholly or partly in answer to questions.
O (4)A police officer examining a person under
subsection (1) shall first inform that person of
the provisions of subsections (2) and (3).
O (5)A statement made by any person under this
section shall, whenever possible, be taken
down in writing and signed by the person
making it or affixed with his thumb print as
the case may be, after it has been read to him
in the language in which he made it and after
he has been given an opportunity to make any
corrections he may wish.
Scope
O This provision deals with the powers of the police to
interview and record a statement from witnesses who
are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case.
O It must be read together with s 113.
Manner of taking down the
statement
O It is not essential that the statement under the
CPC, s 112 should be rendered in the form of
a question and answer
[PP v Subramaniam [1956] MLJ 58; Abdullah
bin Ambik [1984] 1 CLJ 189].
Statement under section 112
must be in writing
O The phrase “shall, whenever possible, be taken
down in writing” found under s 112(5) of the
CPC makes it obligatory for the statement to
be reduced into writing. The phrase “shall,
whenever possible” only relates to the thumb
print or signature requirement [Abdul Ghani
bin Jusoh & Anor v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 25].
Authentication of statement
O All statements recorded pursuant to the CPC,
s 112 must be authenticated by a signature or
thumb print.
O Where failure to have signature or thumb
print, the statement will be inadmissible
[Abdul Ghani bin Jusoh & Anor v PP [1981] 1
MLJ 25].
O A statement recorded under section 112
must be voluntary In Norliana bte Sulaiman
v PP [2000] 4 MLJ 752, it was held that a
statement recorded under the CPC, s 112 must
have been made voluntarily.
O Alteration and amendment Subsection (5)
also directs that a witness making a statement
under this section must be given the
opportunity to make alterations or amendment
[Tan Choon Huat v PP [1991] 3 MLJ 230].
Whether an accused person is entitled to statement
of witnesses recorded under section 112

O In Khoo Siew Bee & Anor v Ketua Polis Kuala
Lumpur [1979] 2 MLJ 49, the court held that the prosecution
is under no obligation to supply to the accused statements
recorded from potential witnesses.
O Husdi v PP [1979] 2 MLJ 304
… But I am of the view that once a police statement is held to
be absolutely privileged for one judicial purpose, it is privileged
for other purposes. There can be no right to inspect. Further, as a
matter of public policy, I am of the view that it is undesirable for
the prosecution to supply the defence with police statements, as
there is a real danger of tampering with the witnesses…
O Recent case:
O PP v Ramasamy Simmathri & Ors [2001] 4
CLJ 690.
O DSAI V PP (2010) MLJ
O Siti Aisyah V PP (2019) CLJ
Subsection (4)
O This provision imposes a mandatory
obligation on the police officer examining a
witness to warn the witness that the witness
may refuse to answer any question which
would have a tendency to expose him to a
criminal charge or penalty or forfeiture [Ng
Song Hei v PP [2008] 10 CLJ 342].
113. Admission of statements
in evidence
O (1)Except as provided in this section, no statement made by any person to a
police officer in the course of a police investigation made under this Chapter
shall be used in evidence.
O (2)When any witness is called for the prosecution or for the defence, other
than the accused, the court shall, on the request of the accused or the
prosecutor, refer to any statement made by that witness to a police officer in
the course of a police investigation under this Chapter and may then, if the
court thinks fit in the interest of justice, direct the accused to be furnished
with a copy of it and the statement may be used to impeach the credit of the
witness in the manner provided by the Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56].
O (3)Where the accused had made a statement during the course of a police
investigation, such statement may be admitted in evidence in support of his
defence during the course of the trial.
O (4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
apply to any statement made in the course of an
identification parade or falling within section
27 or paragraphs 32(1)(a), (i) and (j) of the
Evidence Act 1950.
O (5)When any person is charged with any
offence in relation to–(a)the making; or
O (b)the contents,
O of any statement made by him to a police
officer in the course of a police investigation
made under this Chapter, that statement may be
used as evidence in the prosecution’s case.
O History of S.113-Prior to the amendment, a statement made by
a witness under s 112 may be admissible against him when he
subsequently becomes an accused [PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin
Haji Idris [1977] 1 MLJ 15].
O Further, any statement made by an accused person, soon after
his arrest will become inadmissible unless a statutory caution
has been administered to the effect that the accused is not
obliged to say anything or answer any question, but any answer
or reply given to the question may be used as evidence against
him provided that the statement of the accused was not obtained
as a result of inducement, threat or promise or as a result of
oppression.
O The amendment abolished the admissibility of cautioned
statements completely as invariably all statements recorded
under s 113 are challenged on the grounds of involuntariness
and oppression..
O Subsection (1) The new current provision renders any
statement recorded from any witness under the CPC, s 112
(including the accused) inadmissible as evidence, except
as provided in the subsection
O Subsection (2) Any statement recorded pursuant to the
CPC, s 112 may only be used during the course of the
trial to impeach the credibility of the witnesses
pursuant to the Evidence Act 1950, s 155(c). The right
can be invoked by the prosecution as well as the defence.
The right to the statement recorded in s 112 is not absolute,
the court must consider the justice of the case before
directing the accused to be furnished with a copy of the
statement recorded from the witness.
O Subsection (3) statement may be admitted in
evidence in support of his defence during the course
of the trial. Chung Tain Kong V PP(2010) 2 CLJ
308
O Subsection (4) any statement made in the course of

an identification parade or falling within section 27 or
paragraphs 32(1)(a), (i) and (j) of the Evidence Act
1950.
O Subsection (5) When a person is charged with giving

a false statement under the CPC, s 112, the statement
recorded under s 112 may be used as evidence for the
prosecution
O THANK YOU

Investigation of Crime Part 2: Muhamad Helmi MD Said Tatacara Jenayah 1 UUK4033

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation of Crime Part 2: Muhamad Helmi MD Said Tatacara Jenayah 1 UUK4033

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation of Crime Part 2: Muhamad Helmi MD Said Tatacara Jenayah 1 UUK4033

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation of

of witnesses recorded under section 112

O Subsection (4) any statement made in the course of

O Subsection (5) When a person is charged with giving

You might also like