LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Lee Kwai Heong & Lee Ah Seng v Pendakwa Raya - J-05-52-2003 & J-05-53-2003    

Cases and Articles Cited

Case Name	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction	Date †	Full Text		Citation Index
Balachandran v PP	[2005] 1 CLJ 85; (2005) 2 MLJ 301; [2005] 1 AMR 321		Malaysia	circa 2005	LexisNexis		78
Sabarudin Bin Non v PP	(2005) 4 MLJ 37		Malaysia	circa 2005	LexisNexis		8
Hari Ram v Uttar Pradesh	[2004] 3 LRI 523		Republic of Ireland	circa 2004			3
Lagi v Pendakwa Raya	[2002] 2 MLJ 577; [2002] 3 CLJ 151; [2002] 2 AMR 2174		Malaysia	circa 2002	LexisNexis		8
‘To deal with the criminal liability of the second and third accused, it is necessary first to quote from two recent authorities to remind ourselves of the law governing s 34. In Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh	AIR 2001 SC 1344	Supreme Court of India	India	circa 2001			8
Goi Ching Ang v PP	(1999) 1 MLJ 507		Malaysia	circa 1999	LexisNexis		6
PP v Chin Moi Moi	(1995) 1 SLR 297		Singapore - Singapore	circa 1995	LexisNexis		2
Under the provisions of s 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention As a result of the application of principles enunciated in s 34, when an accused is convicted under s 302 read with s 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them As was observed in Ch Pulla Reddy v Andhra Pradesh	AIR 1993 SC 1899	Supreme Court of India	India	circa 1993			17
Melvani v Public Prosecutor	[1992] 1 MLJ 137		Malaysia	circa 1992	LexisNexis		17
Loh Shak Mow v Public Prosecutor; Wong Hoi Ping, Alan v Public Prosecutor	[1987] 1 MLJ 362		Malaysia	circa 1987	LexisNexis		5
[1986] SLR 358	[1986] SLR 358		Singapore - Singapore	circa 1986	LexisNexis		2
Tengku Mahmood v Public Prosecutor	[1974] 1 MLJ 110		Malaysia	circa 1974	LexisNexis		14
Chandrasekaran v PP	[1971] 1 MLJ 153		Malaysia	circa 1971	LexisNexis		14
Herchun Singh v Public Prosecutor	[1969] 2 MLJ 209		Malaysia	circa 1969	LexisNexis		26
Neither the Evidence Act nor any other Act lays down any law governing the question which statement of a witness should be believed or should not be believed The question depends upon so many circumstances that it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules The law has left it to the court to decide whether the evidence should be believed or not and, if believed, what weight should be attached to it or what effect should be given to it These matters have been left at the sound discretion of the court When the Legislature itself has left them at the discretion of the court, it is not open to the highest court to fetter the discretion by laying down hard and fast rules, because it would be tantamount to legislating (Jwala v State			India - Uttar Pradesh	circa 1963			1
The Act does not purport to lay down any rule as to the weight to be attached to the evidence when admitted, nor is any such rule possible for the proper appreciation of evidence is a matter of experience, common sense and knowledge of human affairs. ‘For weighing evidence and drawing inferences from it, there can be no canon. Each case presents its own peculiarities, and common sense and shrewdness must be brought to bear upon the facts elicited in every case which a judge of facts in this country discharging the functions of a jury in England, has to weigh and decide (per Birch J in R v Madhub 21 WR Cr 13, 19; Mahendrapal v State			India - Uttar Pradesh	circa 1955			1
Abraham Ho Ah Loke v William Manson-Hing	[1949] MLJ 37		Malaysia	circa 1949	LexisNexis		1
AD Caldeira v FA Gray	[1936] MLJ 137		Malaysia	circa 1936	LexisNexis		1
Powell v Streatham Manor Nursing Home	[1935] AC 243; [1935] All ER 58; 152 LT 563; 80 Sol Jo 243; 104 LJKB 304		United Kingdom	circa 1935	LexisNexis / Westlaw		349