MURDERLIMB A OF SECTION 300       The parties involve are A as the accused and B as the victim. Then, the issue here is wh...
LIMB B OF SECTION 300         The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A may be held...
LIMB C OF SECTION 300         The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A may be held...
LIMB D OF SECTION 300         The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A may be held...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

(1) murder

2,471

Published on

disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,471
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
172
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "(1) murder"

  1. 1. MURDERLIMB A OF SECTION 300 The parties involve are A as the accused and B as the victim. Then, the issue here is whetherB can be held liable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (a) of the Penal Code andpunishable under Section 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 300 defines murder as causing the death of another human being with the necessaryelement as stated under limb (a) to limb (d). In determining whether X can be held liable, we have to see whether his acts fall within theambit of limb (a). Limb (a) only requires an intention to kill. In Tan Hoi Hung, intention is defined aswhen a man is consciously shaping his conduct so as to achieving his conduct to bring out a certainevent. Intention can be inferred from the facts of the case namely from (1) the nature of the injury,(2) the place of injury, (3) the method of infliction and (4) the use or nature of weapon. In Tan BuckTee v PP, the deceased’s body had 5 appalling wounds, wounds which penetrated to the heart andliver. In the view of the court, the wounds would have been caused by violent blows with a heavyinstrument like an axe. In the absence of anything else, whoever inflicted these blows must haveintended to kill the person. In Ghazali Mat Ghani v PP, the accused shot the deceased at a closerange with a rifle. The cause of death was a fatal shot in the heart. The accused was convicted ofmurder. On appeal, the conviction was correct as the appellant had inflicted the injury to thedeceased’s heart and caused his death. In PR v Mohd Asmadi bin Yusof, the accused intended tocause the deceased’s death based on the serious injuries inflicted on the head. There was evidencethat the accused struck the deceased’s head with bricks. The court held that the violent nature ofthe accused’s assault and the long standing feud between the accused and the victim showed theaccused’s intention was with an intention to kill.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (a) of thePenal Code and punishable under Section 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.
  2. 2. LIMB B OF SECTION 300 The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A may be heldliable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (b) of the Penal Code and punishable underSection 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 300 defines murder as causing the death of another human being with the necessaryelement as stated under limb (a) to limb (d). In determining whether A can be held liable, we have to see whether his acts fall within theambit of limb (b). Limb (b) requires the offender not only intends a bodily injury but he must havethe knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death. The knowledge here refers to the personalknowledge of the accused which resulted in the death of the victim. The offender must have specialknowledge of the victim and knows that an act will result the death of the victim even though suchbodily injury would not cause the death of any person in good health. This knowledge requiredrefers to a certainty and not a mere probability. This can be illustrated in the first half of illustration(b) of Section 300. In the illustration, [A knows that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow islikely to cause his death, strikes him within the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in theconsequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient toin the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. If the actdone is accompanied with intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death and it was notknown that it was likely a consequence, it is a culpable homicide].APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (b) of thePenal Code and punishable under Section 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.
  3. 3. LIMB C OF SECTION 300 The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A may be heldliable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (c) of the Penal Code and punishable underSection 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 300 defines murder as causing the death of another human being with the necessaryelement as stated under limb (a) to limb (d). In determining whether A can be held liable for murder, we have to see whether his act fallswithin the ambit of limb (c). Limb (c) requires an intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in theordinary course of nature to cause death of another person. In proving the criminal liability, wemust first identify whether the act was inflicted intentionally or accidental. Second, whether theinjury is sufficient to cause the death of a person. In Yap Biew Hian v PP, the court gave a guidelinethat a sufficient injury means there is a high probability of death in such instance.Circumstantial cases - depending on the questionMURDERING CHILDREN - In PP v Aziz Mat Shah, the accused was charged for murdering a 3 year oldchild. The accused after work had slapped the deceased, punch her in the stomach and chest andused a pillow to cover the deceased’s face before she stopped crying. The court held that thesufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary way of nature, and when exist and deathensues followed by the intention to cause such injury, the offence is murder.MURDERING GIRL IN THE PROCESS OF RAPE – In the case of PP v Mohd Abbas, the accused wascharged with murder of 10 years old girl who had been strangled while being raped by the accused.The court held that it was murder falls under all limbs in section 300 as the act was done by theaccused with intention, sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause death or the act known to himto be imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities to cause death.PP V ABDUL RAZAK DALEK – the accused stabbed and slit her wife.Tan Cheow Bock v PP – the accused stabbed the victim mouth when he tried to rob her as she wasshouted. Intention to cause injury is determine whether he had intentionally caused the fatal injury.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, In conclusion, A may be held liable for murder as define under Section 300limb (c) of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 302 of the same code for causing the deathof B.
  4. 4. LIMB D OF SECTION 300 The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A may be heldliable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (d) of the Penal Code and punishable underSection 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 300 defines murder as causing the death of another human being with the necessaryelement as stated under limb (a) to limb (d). In determining whether A can be held liable for murder, we have to see whether his act fallswithin the ambit of limb (d). Limb (d) requires that the offender knows that his act is imminentlydangerous that it must in all probability to cause death. There are two elements to this limb. Firstly,the act was done with knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it will cause death or injurylikely to cause death. In PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee, the accused shot a lady who refused to comeout from her car. The accused claimed that he was drunk at the time he took the shot which hit hervital organ. The court held that the accused’s act was imminently dangerous. Secondly, the act wasdone without lawful excuse. Illustration (d) of Section 300 provided that A, without any excuse, firesa loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although hemay not have a premeditated design to kill any particular person.APPLICATION In applying the law to the situation, A’s act was clearly a dangerous act as firing a gun isimminently dangerous at it is a weapon to kill. When A fired the gun, he has the knowledge that hemight in all probabilities kill someone.CONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for murder as define under Section 300 limb (d) of thePenal Code and punishable under Section 302 of the same code for causing the death of B.

×