LAW523;
CRIMINAL LAW
AND
EVIDENCE
PREPARED BY:
AFZA NURUL AIN HUSNA BINTI ABDUL
RAHIM (2022755653)
MIMI MUSHALINA BINTI MOHAMED
MUSTAFA (2022913043)
PREPARED FOR:
MADAM MASTIKA NASRUN
QUESTION
A has a habit of beating his wife, B, over trivial issues. One
day, A came home from work exhausted. B was slow in
serving him his drink which angered him. He hit B on the
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis
head. B fell down and passed out. A shook B but B was still
vulputate nulla at ante rhoncus,
vel efficitur felis condimentum.
Proin odio odio.
unconscious. Thinking that he had caused B’s death, A went
to the kitchen. A switched on the gas stove, locked all the
windows and doors before leaving the house/30 minutes later,
he received news that his house was on fire. B died. The
medical report states that B died because of the fire. Can A be
liable for B’s death
What issue can we find in this question?
ISSUE
Who is the ‘OKT’?
01
02 A is the OKT
03
04
What
05
is the issue?
The issue
06 is whether A is liable for
causing
07 the death of B.
LAW
There are 2 elements that need to be coincide during the accident
which are Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
Actus Reus is a conduct or act or omission that results in a harm
while Mens Rea is blameworthy state of mind including intention,
knowledge, rashness, and voluntary.
AR + MR must coincide at the same time. If not, the accused is not
guilty for causing the death of the victim. However,
A can be convicted for committing culpable homicide
LAW
Two important parameters which are considered:
Legislation:
1. Section 299 - Culpable homicide
This section explains that whoever causes death by doing an act
with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
LAW
2. Section 304(b) of the Penal Code
- Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
This section states that whoever commits culpable homicide not
amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years or with fine or with both, if the act is
done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without
any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death
Cases
LAW
1. Queen Empress v Khandu Valad
The accused struck the blows on the victim. He placed the firewood
under the victim’s head and set the fire because he believed the
victim was [Link] medical evidence revealed that the victim died
due to injuries from burning and not the blows.
2. Palani Goundan v Emperor
The accused struck his wife and caused her to be senseless. He
then hung his wife from a beam to create a fake suicide because he
believed his wife was dead. The medical report revealed that she
died from the hanging, not the struck
LAW
Both cases shows that the first act had the
intention to cause harm, but the second act
conveyed the accused not intended to cause
the death, yet to conceal the evidence and
create fake situation.
A struck the blows on top of his wife's head, making
her fell unconscious. Then, he thought he had killed
her. To hide the evidence, he set fire to his house
while his wife is unconcious. Later on, the post-
mortem results showed that his wife died due to fire,
and not due to the blows that A had made.
There are two transaction rule:
1. First Transaction
A had the intention of causing bodily injury but the striking did not cause death to
B.
Thus, Actus Reus is absent and Mens Rea is present
2. Second Transaction
A had the intention to conceal the evidence of B’ death by starting a fire that
actually the cause of B’s death.
Thus, Actus Reus is present and Mens Rea is absent
By looking at the absence of any prearranged plan, like the case of Queen
Empress v Khaldu Valad Bharvani, where the accused struck the blows on the
victim and he placed the firewood under the victim’s head and set the fire because
he believed the victim was dead, it is more accurate to use seperate transaction
rule.
CONCLUSION
A is not liable in causing the death of B
due because Actus Reus and Mens
Rea
Remydo not coincide
Marsh
Everest
Cantu
at the
Drew same time
Holloway
Morgan
Maxwell
Marketing Business Head Manager