Fakulti Undang-Undang

UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

RANGKA KURSUS

KOD : UUUK4083
KURSUS : UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN II

PENSYARAH : DR. RAMALINGGAM RAJAMANICKAM (PENYELARAS)

03/89216376 / rama@ukm.edu.my

PROF. MADYA DR. MOHAMAD RIZAL BIN ABD RAHMAN

03-89216368 / noryn@ukm.my

SEMESTER DAN SESI : SEMESTER II / SESI 2018-20179

AGIHAN TOPIK MENGIKUT MINGGU

1. FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED

WEEK 1 (a) Judicial notice

(b) Formal Admissions
(c) Admission of Fact in Criminal Cases

2. FACTS WHICH NEED TO BE PROVED

WEEK 2 (a) Oral Evidence

(b) Documentary Evidence
(c) Real Evidence

3. BURDEN OF PROOF

(a) Legal burden and evidential burden

WEEK 3 4. QUANTUM OF PROOF

(a) Civil and Criminal Cases

(b) Circumstantial Evidence
(c) Fraud
(d) Matrimony

1
 5. BURDEN OF PROOF PRESCRIBED BY LAW

WEEK 4 (a) Criminal Cases

(b) Defence of alibi
(c) Facts especially within knowledge

6. PRESUMPTIONS

(a) Types of presumptions

WEEK 5
(b) Effect of presumptions
(c) Presumption of fact
(d) S.114(g) Adverse Inference

(e) S.114A Presumption of Fact in Publication

WEEK 6 (f) Rebuttable Presumptions of law
(g) Irrebuttable Presumptions of law

WEEK 7 TEST

7. ESTOPPEL

WEEK 8 (a) Meaning and scope of Estoppel

(b) Conditions necessary to raise an Estoppel
(c) Burden of Proof

8. CORROBORATION

(a) General Principle

(b) Accomplice Evidence
WEEK 9
 The Meaning of the word’ accomplice’
 Prosecution witness
 Effect of accomplice Evidence
 The nature of warning

(c) Evidence of Child Witness

Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 (Act 676)
WEEK 10
 Capacity of child witness
 The requirement of corroboration
 Sworn and Unsworn Evidence

(d) Sexual Offences

WEEK 11
 Nature of the Offence
 Adequate warning

2
  Identification of accused

(e) Offence under the Sedition Act

(f) Entries in Books of Account
(g) Former Statements

9. WITNESSES
WEEK 12
(a) Competence and Compellability
(b) Categories of Witnesses

WEEK 13 (c) Privileges

WEEK 14 REVISION

3
I. SINOPSIS KURSUS

Kursus ini merupakan kesinambungan kepada kursus Undang-Undang Keterangan I (UUUK4073). Kursus
ini dimulakan dengan membincangkan aspek pembuktian. Perbincangan tentang pembuktian adalah
berdasarkan asas bahawa seseorang peguam bukan sahaja perlu menentukan sesuatu fakta yang dikemukakan
itu relevan dan seterusnya boleh diterima oleh mahkamah, malah perlu mengambil kira bagaimana dia patut
membuktikan fakta-fakta itu, sekiranya perlu. Sesetengah fakta diandaikan wujud atau diakui secara formal
oleh sesuatu pihak di mana ia tidak perlu dibuktikan lagi. Peraturan tentang pembuktian dinyatakan dalam
Bahagian II Akta Keterangan 1950 yang menghuraikan bahawa fakta-fakta yang perlu dibuktikan boleh
dibuktikan sama ada melalui keterangan lisan, keterangan dokumentar ataupun keterangan sebenar dengan
melunaskan beban pembuktian mengikut piawai yang telah ditetapkan. Aspek pembuktian turut mengambil
kira peruntukan-peruntukan yang berkaitan dengan anggapan, estopel dan keperluan keterangan sokongan.
Akhir sekali, kursus ini membincangkan tentang kategori dan perlindungan saksi-saksi berdasarkan
peruntukan Akta Keterangan 1950.

11. OBJEKTIF KURSUS

1. Mendidik pelajar supaya berkebolehan dalam mengenal pasti teori dan amalan undang-undang
keterangan sebagai kesinambungan daripada yang dipelajari dalam Semester I.

2. Mendidik pelajar dalam menggunakan teori dan amalan undang-undang keterangan untuk mengenal
pasti isu dan menyelesaikan masalah undang-undang sebagai kesinambungan daripada yang
dipelajari dalam Semester I.

III. PENGENDALIAN KURSUS

1. Amaran Kehadiran Kuliah & Tutorial

Menurut Seksyen 8 Akta Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Pengajian Sarjana Muda) 1990 dan
Peraturan-peraturan UKM (Pengajian Sarjana Muda) 1990 kehadiran kuliah dan tutoran adalah
wajib. Mana-mana pelajar mempunyai kehadiran kurang dari 70% boleh dihalang dari menghadiri
peperiksaan akhir.

2. Penilaian Kursus dan Pengagihan Markah

Pembentangan 20 %
Projek Berkumpulan 20 %
Ujian/Kuiz/Viva 20 %
Peperiksaan Akhir 40 %

1V. RUJUKAN

1. Rujukan Utama:

Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer. 2014. Janab’s Key to the Law of Evidence. Ed. ke-4. Kuala Lumpur:
Janab (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Jeffrey Pinsler. 2013. Evidence and the Litigation Process. Ed. ke-4, Singapore: lexisNexis

Rafiah Salim & Cheong May Fong. 2013. Evidence in Malaysia and Singapore: Cases, Materials and
Commentaries. Ed. ke-3. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis

Habibah Omar, Siva Barathi Marimuthu & Mazlina Mahali. 2015. Law of Evidence in Malaysia.
Selangor: Sweet & Maxwell.
4
Augustine Paul. 2010. Evidence, Practice and Procedure. Ed. ke-4. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis

2. Rujukan Tambahan:

Dennis, Ian H. 2013. The Law of Evidence. 5th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
H. K. Saharay; Madhusudan Saharay. 2008. Law of Evidence. Kolkata : Eastern Law House.
Jal Zabdi Mohd Yusoff. 2003. Pengenalan kepada Undang-Undang Keterangan di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:
Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
Mason, Stephen. 2012. Electronic Evidence. 3rd edition. LexisNexis Butterworths.
M C Sarkar (ed). 2010. Sarkar’s Law of Evidence. 17th ed. Nagpur: Wadhwa and Co.
Peters, Mariette. 2013. Law of Evidence in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis.
Phipson, S.I.; Malek, H.M.; Auburn, Jonathan. 2009. Phipson on Evidence. 17th ed. London : Sweet &
Maxwell.
Phipson, S.I.; Malek, H.M.; Auburn, Jonathan. 2011. Phipson on Evidence: First Supplement to the
Seventeenth Edition. London : Sweet & Maxwell.
Phipson, S.I.; Malek, H.M.; Auburn, Jonathan. 2012. Phipson on Evidence: Second Supplement to the
Seventeenth Edition. London : Sweet & Maxwell.
Ratanlal Ranchhoddas (ed). 2010. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Evidence. 2nd ed. Nagpur: Wadhwa
and Co.
Tapper, Colin. 2010. Cross & Tapper on Evidence. 12th ed. Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Paul; Zuckerman, Adrian. 2010. Criminal Evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

2. Statut

1. Akta Keterangan 1950

2. Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007
3. Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017
4. Kanun Tatacara Jenayah
5. Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012
6. Akta Sumpah dan Ikrar 1949

5
V. KANDUNGAN KURSUS

1. FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED

(a) JUDICIAL NOTICE (S.56-58)

Pembangunan Maha Murni Sdn Bhd v Juruurus Ladang Sdn Bhd [986] 2 MLJ 30, (SC)
Re KO (an infant) [1990] 1MLJ 494 (HC)
Kamaruzaman bin Yahya v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor [1997] 5 MLJ 256,263 (HC)
PP v Saad bin Mat Takraw [1998] 3 MLJ 784, 800 (HC)
Krishnan Rajan a/l N.Krishnan v Bank Negara Malaysia [2003] 1 MLJ 149

Road use and behavior in the country

PP v Zulkifli bin Omar [1998] 6 MLJ 65, 77 (HC)

Personal knowledge of a judge cannot be used to take judicial notice

Loh Moh & Anor v PP [1954] MLJ 14, 18 (HC)

Article:

Mohd Akram b. Hj. Shair Mohamed." Judicial Notice And The Judge's Personal Knowledge." [2002] 4 CLJ liii.

(b) FORMAL ADMISSIONS IN CIVIL CASES

Three methods of admission

Haron v Macaulay [1969] 1 MLJ 169
Mohd Nazari Ab Majit v Tan Keo Hock & Anor [1999] 1 CLJ 601 (HC)

Order 18 Rule 13 Rules Court 2012

Abdul Majid b.Hj.Nazardin v Paan Perumal [2002] 3 MLJ 640

Admission must be clear

Carabao Exports Pty Ltd v Online Management Consultants Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 3 MLJ 271, 272 (HC)

(c) ADMISSION OF FACT IN CRIMINAL CASES

The effects of s 73AA

2. FACTS WHICH NEED TO BE PROVED

Facts which are not judicially noticed or formally admitted have to be proved by oral, affidavit, documentary or real
Evidence or a combination of these modes of proving facts.

(a) ORAL EVIDENCE (S.3, S.59, S.60, S.119, 135)

Oral Evidence is the basic and most important mode of proof namely witnesses testifying as to what they directly
perceived. The whole structure of the trial is built around oral Evidence which is constituted by the process of
examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination.

Evidentiary value of oral Evidence

Balasingham v PP [1959] MLJ 193 (HC)
Tan Cheang Hock v Chan Thean Soo & anor [1987] 2 MLJ 479
Tara Singh v PP [1949] MLJ 88
Stu v The Comptroller of Income Tax [1962] MLJ 220
6
Lee Ing Chin & Ors v Ean Yook Chin & anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97

Tests for determining the credibility of a witness

PP v Dato’Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [1999] 2 MLJ 1
De Silva v PP [1964] MLJ 81
Che Omar bin Mohd Akhir v PP [1999] 2 MLJ 689
Muniandy & Ors v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 257
PP v Mohamed Ali [1962] MLJ
Chew Boon Ee v Ramanathan Chettiar [1959] MLJ 235

(b) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Poh Siew Cheng v American International Assurance Co Ltd [2006] 6 MLJ 57
Tempil Perkakas Sdn.Bhd v Foo Sex Hong [1996] 5 MLJ 542 (HC)
Gunasegaran a/l Pararajasingam v PP [1997] 3 MLJ 1 (CCA)
Mohd Ali Jaafar vPP [1998] 4 MLJ 210 (HC)
Muniyandi a/l Periyan & anor v Eric Chew Wai Keat & anor [2003] 3 MLJ 527

Primary Evidence and secondary Evidence

Lucas v Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113, 116 (CA)
Lee Weng Kin v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam negeri, Malaysia & Ors [1991] 2 MLJ 472 (HC)

Proof of Documentary Evidence

A document may be proved by primary or secondary Evidence.
Popular Industries Ltd. v Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 360 (HC)
Chong Khee Sang v Pang Ah Chee [1984] 1 MLJ 377 (HC)
PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris [1977] 1 MLJ 180 (HC)

Article:

Duryana Mohamed, Afridah Abas."The Process Of Gathering Evidence In Civil Cases: Its Application In Civil And
Shariah Courts." [2011] 3 MLJ cxxii.

The original document must be properly stamped. (S.52 Stamp Ordinance 1949)
Chiew Vui Kiet & anor v Chong Fook Tien & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 158 (FC)

The maker of a document must be called to prove it. (S.32, 73A)

Alliedbank (M) Bhd. v Yau Jiok Hua [1998] 6 MLJ 1, 14 (HC)

Documents produced by a computer- S.90A, 90B, 90C EA

- exception to the Hearsay Rule
Gunanasegaran a/l Pararajasingam v PP [1997] 3 MLJ 1, (CA)
PP v The Eng Wah [1999] 8 CLJ 452
Public Prosecutor v Azilah bin Hadri & Anor [2015] 1 MLJ 617

Articles:

Gita Radhakrishna, Myint Zan, Dennis Khong Wye Keen. "Computer Evidence In Malaysia: Where Are We?" [2013]
3 MLJ xxxiii.
Duryana Mohamed. "Computer Evidence: Issues And Challenges In The Present And In The Future." [2011] 1 LNS
(A) lxvii.
Gita Radhakrishna. "Legal Issues In Electronic Evidence." [2009] 4 MLJ lxv.

7
Exclusion of oral by documentary Evidence (S 91- 99 EA)
Datuk Tan Leng Teck v Sarjana Sdn Bhd & Ors [1997] 4 MLJ 329
Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co. [1979] 2 MLJ 229
Ng Kong Yue & anor v R [1962] MLJ 67
Ah Mee v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 220

Public Document And Private Document

Husdi v PP [1979] 2 MLJ 304
Khoo Siew Bee v Ketua Polis, KL [1979]2 MLJ 49
Loo Fang Siang v Ketua Polis Daerah, Butterworth [1981] 2 MLJ 272

The Right To Inspect

Kulwant v PP [1986] 2 MLJ 10 (HC)
Anthony Gomez v Ketua Polis Daerah Kuantan [1977] 2 MLJ 24
Toh Kong Joo v Penguasa perubatan Hospital Sultanah Aminah JB [1990] 2 MLJ 235
Haji Abdul Ghani Ishak vPP [1980] 2 MLJ 196
Huzir bin Hassan v Ketua Polis Daerah JB [1994] 2 MLJ 385

(e) REAL EVIDENCE

Real Evidence concerns those forms which the court will consider on the basis of its perception for the purpose of
determining the inferences to be drawn. Such Evidence would include material objects such as a knife used in a
murder, a packet containing a prohibited drug, tape recordings, the demeanour of a witness and the existence or
condition of a material thing.

3. BURDEN OF PROOF

General meaning of ‘burden of proof’- S.3, S.101 & S.102 EA

Malaysia Building Society Bhd v Sentiasa Harum Sdn Bhd & Ors [2003] 5 MLJ 328,
Cheng Hang Guan & Ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1993] 3 MLJ 352
PP v Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim & Anor [2001] 3 MLJ 193
Poh Siew Cheng v American International Assurance Co Ltd [2006] 6 MLJ 57
PP v Selvarajoo A/L Ramachandran & Ors [2005] 5 MLJ 282
PP v Kesavan A/L Petchayo [Commat] Balakrishnan [2001] 7 MLJ 144
Lim Tai Ming & Sons Credit Sdn Bhd v Lim Tuck Thien [2001] 1 MLJ 57

(a) LEGAL BURDEN AND EVIDENTIAL BURDEN

Tenaga Nasional Bhd. V Perwaja Steel Sdn.Bhd [1995] 4 MLJ 673, 676-677 (HC)
International Times & Ors. V Leong Ho Yuen [1980] 2 MLJ 86, 87 (FC)
Aziz Bin Muhamad Din v PP [1996] 5 MLJ 473, 479-498 (HC)
Wong Siew Ping v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 56, 57-58 (HC)
Rusli Supardi v PP [2002] 3 MLJ 256

4. QUANTUM OF PROOF

(a) CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
Mohamed Radhi bin Yaakob v PP [1991] 3 MLJ 169, 171 (SC)
Lim Soh Meng & Anor v Krishnan [1967] 1 MLJ 8

(b) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Kartar Singh v R [1952] 18 MLJ 85
8
Chan Chwen Kong v PP [1962] MLJ 307
Sunny Ang v PP [1966] 2 MLJ 191
McGreevy v DPP [1973] 1 ALL ER 503
Jayaraman v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 306
Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1990] 2 MLJ 149

(c) FRAUD
Eastern & Oriental Hotel Sdn Bhd v Ellarious George Fernandez & Anor [1989] 1 MLJ 35
Lee Kim Luang v Lee Shiah Yee [1988] 1 MLJ 193
Eastern Enterprises v Ong Choo Kim [1969] 1 MLJ 236

(d) MATRIMONY
Ng v Lim [1969] 1 MLJ 139
Koh Teng Lam v Elsie Koh [1976] 2 MLJ 222
Lim Nyuk Lim v Gan Kim Biow [1982] 2 MLJ 68

5. BURDEN OF PROOF PRESCRIBED BY LAW

(a) CRIMINAL CASES – S.105

Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
R v Carr-Briant [1943] 1 KB 607
Jayasena v R [1970] 1 All ER 219
PP v Yuvaraj [1969] 2 MLJ 89
Ng Eng Kooi & Anor v PP [1970] 1 MLJ 267
PP v Ang Boon Foo [1981] 1 MLJ 40
Ikau anak Mail v PP [1973] 2 MLJ 153

(b) PROOF OF PARTICULAR FACT –S.103

Dato Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232 (FC)
Yau Heng Fang v PP [1985] 2 MLJ 232 (SC)
Illian & anor v PP [1988] 1 MLJ 421 (SC)
Ramakrishnan s/o Ramayan v PP [1998] 3 SLR 645 (HC)

(c) FACTS ESPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE- S.106

Ho Tong Cheong & Ors v Oversea- Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1967] 2MLJ 70
PP v Kum Chee Cheong [1992] 2 SLR 126, 132-33 (HC)
PP v Hoo Chee Keong [1997] 4 MLJ 451, 459-60 (HC)

6. PRESUMPTIONS

(a) TYPES OF PRESUMPTIONS – S.4

(i) Presumptions of fact - S.4(1)
(ii) Rebuttable presumptions of law – S.4(2)
(iii) Irrebuttable presumptions of law- S.4(3)

General principle
It is a rule of law whereby upon proof of one fact called the basic fact, another fact called the presumed fact is deemed
to have been proved.
PP v Ooi Seng Huat [1968] 2 MLJ 168 (HC)
PP v Ee Boon Keat [2006] 2 MLJ 633

9
(b) EFFECT OF PRESUMPTIONS
Lt.Kol Yusof bin Abd.Rahman v Kol Annuar bin Md Amin [11997] 1 MLJ 562, 577 (CA)

(c) PRESUMPTION OF FACT – S.86, 87, 88, 90, 114

The court may either regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

Presumptions of fact must not be drawn automatically.

Mohamed Ali v PP [1962] MLJ 230, 231-132 (HC)

S.114(a)
PP v Hong Ah Huat [1976] MLJ 152

Presumptions regarding Evidence of accomplices

(refer ‘corroboration’)
S.114(b) to be read with S.133 EA

S.114 (c) (d)(e) (f)(i)

(d) S114 (G) – ‘ADVERSE INFERENCE’

Cheng Hang Guan & Ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1993] 3 MLJ 352
PP v Kesavan A/L Petchayo [Commat] Balakrishnan [2001] 7 MLJ 144
PP v Ee Boon Keat [2006] 2 MLJ 633
Khoo Chye Hin v PP [1961] MLJ 105, 109 (CA)
Samsudin v PP [1962] MLJ 405, 407 (CA)
Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492, 494 (SC)
Pendakwa Raya v Mansor bin Mohd Rashid [1996] 3 MLJ 560
PP v Guan Sheng Trading Sdn Bhd [1997] 4 MLJ 20 HC
Pekan Nenas Industries Sdn.Bhd v Chang Ching Chuen [1998] 1 MLJ 465 (FC)
Zulsafari Abd.Ghani v Shahril Idris [2003] 7 MLJ 436
Public Prosecutor v Azilah bin Hadri & Anor [2015] 1 MLJ 617

S114 (h) to be read with S.148 (2) (d) EA

See S114 sub.seksyen (i)--(x)

(e) S114A - 'PRESUMPTION OF FACT IN PUBLICATION'

Article:

Mariette Peters. “Section 114A ... A Presumption of Guilt?” [2012] 6 MLJ ciii.

(f) REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW

S.79-85, 89, S.105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 EA
The court ‘shall presume’ – S.4(2)

General principle
The court shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved.
- Refer cases under S.105

Presumptions as to documents- S.79-90

(g) IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW – S.4(3)

S.41, 112, 113 AK - “conclusive proof”

10
S.112 EA
The section is only applicable where the legitimacy of a child is involved.
Chua Kim Suan v Ang Mek Chong [1988] 3 MLJ 231, 234 (HC)
Ainan bin Mahmud v Syed Abu Bakar bin Habib Yusoff & Ors [1939] MLJ Rep 209, 215 (HC)
Ng Chian Perng v Ng Ho Peng [1982] 2 MLJ 686 (HC)

S.113 EA
It shall be an irrebuttable presumption of law that a boy under 13 years is incapable of committing rape.

Article:

Ramalinggam Rajamanickam, Seksyen 113 Akta Keterangan 1950: Sejauh Manakah Kerelevanannya dalam
Pentadbiran Keadilan di Malaysia? Current Law Journal [2012] 1 QLR 42

7. THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL (S.40-44, 115-117)

The principle of Estoppel is related to the burden of proof in that it prevents a party from proving facts in prescribed
situations.

(a) MEANING AND SCOPE OF ESTOPPEL

Industrial & Commercial Realty Co.Led v Merchant Credit Pte Ltd.[1980] 1 MLJ 208 (HC)
UMW Toyota (M) Sdn Bhd vChow Weng Thiem [1996] 5 MLJ 678
Commissioners of Malacca v Sinniah [1974] 1 MLJ 77
Public Textiles Berhad v Lembaga letrik Negara [1976] 2 MLJ 58
Ban Seng v Yap Pek Soo [1967] 2 MLJ 156

(b) CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO RAISE AN ESTOPPEL

V Veerah v General Manager Keterapi Tanah Melayu [1974] 1 MLJ 202

(c ) BURDEN OF PROOF
Muthiah v Lee Kor Fan [1996] 1 MLJ 105 (HC)

“He who seeks equity must come with clean hands”

Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd.Mokhtar bin Ali [1995] 4 MLJ 601

8. CORROBORATION

(a) GENERAL PRINCIPLE

Corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with
the crime.

PP v Mohammad Terang Bin Amit [1999] 1 MLJ 154

Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy S/O Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61
Francis Antonysamy v PP [2005] 3 MLJ 389
Pasupathy A/L Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 493
R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658
R v Whitehead [1929] 1 KB 99
MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493
Aziz Bin Muhamad Din v PP [1996] 5 MLJ 473, 479-498 (HC)
TN Nathan v PP [1978] 1 MLJ 134
DPP v Kilbourne [1973] 1 All ER 440
Lim Eng Eng v Pendakwa Raya [1998] 3 AMR 2079
11
Attan bin Abdul Gani v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 143
Yap Ee Kong & Anor v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 144

(i) rule of prudence

(ii) rule of practice
(iii) rule of law

Article:

Mohd Akram b. Hj. Shair Mohamed. "The Corroboration Controversy Created By Section 157 Of The
Evidence Act 1950." [2013] 6 MLJ cxx.

(b) ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE (S.114 (b) TO BE READ WITH S.133)

An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

The meaning of the word ‘accomplice’

Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 ALL ER 507
Ratten Singh v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 162
PP v Abdul Azizsou & Ors [1978] 2MLJ, 166 (HC)
PP v Mohd Jamil bin Yahya & anor [1993] 3 MLJ 702, 711 (HC)
Teja Singh & Anor v PP [1950] MLJ 74-76

The accomplice rule applies only to a witness called for the prosecution
Daud bin Awang Ngah & Ors v PP [1958] MLJ 168, 169-170 (CA)
PP v Yeoh Teck Chye [1981] 2 MLJ 176 (FC)
Abdul Khalid bin Abd.Hamid v PP [1995] 1 MLJ 692 (HC)

Effect of accomplice Evidence

Daimon bin Banda v PP [1953] MLJ 23,24 (CA)
Kong Weng Chong v PP [1994] 1 SLR 34 (CCA)
Goh Ah Yew v PP [1949] MLJ 150, 153 (CA)
Ng yau Thai v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 214
Khoo Cheng Huat v PP [1949] 1 MLJ 42 (HC)
Adzhaar bin Ahmad v PP [1996] 4 MLJ 85 (HC)
Hainie Hamid v PP [2002] 2 MLJ 157
Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim v PP And Another Appeal [2004] 3 MLJ 405

The nature of warning

Shazali bin Salleh v PP [1993] 2 AMR 2039

Other Relevant Cases

Jegathesan v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 165.

R v Lim Yam Hong [1921] 14 SSLR 152
Bhuboni Sahu v The King (1949) 76 1A 147
PP v Thavananthan [1994] 2 MLJ 436
Pendakwa Raya v Khairul Adli bin Ramli dan lain-lain [2007] 6 MLJ 754
PP v Selvarajoo A/L Ramachandran & Ors [2005] 5 MLJ 282
Pasupathy A/L Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 493
Sabarudin Bin Non & Ors v PP [2005] 4 MLJ 37
Harcharan Singh & Anor v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 593
PP v Mohd Azam Bin Basiron And Another Trial [2004] 2 MLJ 556
PP v Sarjeet Singh & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 290
12
Mahmud Jamili Bin Zaudin & Anor v PP [1995] 4 MLJ 243
PP v Lin Chien Pang [1993] 2 MLJ 34
Ramachandran & Anor v PP [1991] 1 MLJ 267
Krishna Jayaram v PP [1989] 3 MLJ 272
Ng Yau Thai v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 214

(c) EVIDENCE OF CHILD WITNESSES (S.133A)

Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 (Act 676)

Capacity of Child witness

Sidek bin Ludan v public Prosecutor [1995] 3 MLJ 178 (HC)
Muharam bin Anson v Public prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 222
Shanmugam a/Munusamy v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 288
Yusaini Mat Adam v PP [1998] 3 MLJ 582

The Requirement of Corroboration

Chao Chong & Ors v PP [1960] MLJ 238
Loo Chuan Huat v PP [1971] 2 MLJ 167
Tham kai Yau & Ors v PP [1977] 1 MLJ 174
Lee Kwang Peng v PP [1997] 3 SLR 278

Sworn and Unsworn Evidence

DPP v Hester [1973] AC 296
Yusaini Bin Mat Adam v PP [1999] 3 MLJ 582
Shanmugam A/L Munusamy v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 288
PP v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1992] 1 CLJ 702 (HC)
Teo Keng Pong v PP [1996] 3 SLR 329 (HC)
PP v Mohammad Terang bin Amit [1999] 1 MLJ 154 (HC)
Kesavan Senderan v PP [1999] 1 CLJ 343

Article:

Aminuddin Mustaffa & Kamaliah Salleh. “Child Evidence In Criminal Proceedings In Malaysian Courts: A Study On
Post Ratification Of The Convention On The Rights Of The Child.”[2010] 6 CLJ(A) i.

(d) SEXUAL OFFENCES

Nature of the offence

Din v PP [1964] MLJ 300 (FC)
Brabakaran v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 64
PP v Ku Hang Chua [1975] 2 MLJ 99 (HC)
Augustine Foong Boo Jang v PP [1990] 1 MLJ 225
PP v Mardai [1950] 1 MLJ 33,
Koh Eng Soon v Rex [1950] MLJ 52
PP v Emran bin Nasir [1987] 1 MLJ 166
R v Burgess (1956) 40 Cr App Rep 144
R v Henry, R v Manning (1968) 53 Cr App R 150

The warning must be clear and adequate

Chiu Nang Hong v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 40

Identification of accused
PP v Mohamed bin Majid [1977] 1 MLJ 12
Mohinder Singh v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 126
13
Article:

Muzaffar Syah B Mallow. "Evidence To Substantiate The Allegations Of Sexual Harassment In The
Workplace."[2011] 1 MLJ i.

(e) OFFENCE UNDER THE SEDITION ACT

PP v Mark Koding [1983] 1 MLJ 111

Lim Guan Eng v PP [1998] 3 MLJ 14
Lim Guan Eng v PP [2000] 2 MLJ 577 (FC)

(f) ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT

Sim Siok Eng & Anor v Poh Hua Transport and Contractor Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 72
Jaswant Singh v Lala Sheo Narain Lal [1893-94] 21 IA 6

(g) EVIDENCE AS TO IDENTIFICATION

Jaafar bin Ali v PP 48 [1998] 4 MLJ 406

Rangapula & Anor v PP 49 [1982] 1 MLJ 91
Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v PP 50 [1983] 2 MLJ 232
Yau Heng Fang v PP 51 [1985] 2 MLJ 335
Arumugam s/o Muthusamy v PP 52 [1998] 3 MLJ 73

(h) FORMER STATEMENTS

Rex v Koh Soon Poh [1935] 1 MLJ 120

PP v Samsul Kamar bin Mohd Zain [1988] 2 MLJ 252
Wong Thin Yit v Mohamed Ali [1971] 2 MLJ 175
Karthiyayani & Anor v Lee Leong Sin & Anor [1975] 1 MLJ 119
Khoo Kwoon Hain v PP [1995] 2 SLR 767
Mohamed Ali v PP [1971] 2 MLJ 175
PP v Paneerselvan & Ors [1991] 1 MLJ 106
Chiu Nang Hong v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 40
Ah Mee v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 220
Morgan a/l Perumal v Ketua Inspector Hussein bin Abdul Majid & Ors [1996] 3 MLJ 281
YK Fung Securities Sdn Bhd v James Capel (Far East) Ltd [1997] 2 MLJ 621 (CA)
Commercial Union Assurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Ng Chek Hung and another appeal [1997] 2 MLJ 465
Thavanathan a/l Balasubramaniam v PP [1997] 2 MLJ 401

9. WITNESSES

(a) COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY

Duty of a competent witness (S.132, 114(h) & S.148(2)(d)EA

Ghouse bin Haji Kader Mustan v R [1946] MLJ 36 (HC)

Test of competence ( S.118 –120)

Kee Lik Tian v PP [1948] 1 MLJ 306 (HC)
Sidek bin Ludan v PP [1995] 3 MLJ 178 (HC)
Chai Kor v PP [1965] 2 MLJ 208 (FC)

14
Oath & Affirmation Act 1949

(b) CATEGORIES OF WITNESSES

(i) Interested witness

Balasingham v PP [1959] MLJ 193 (HC)
Rattan Singh v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 162 (HC)
Tan Kheng Ann & Ors v PP [1965] 2 MLJ 108

(ii) Chance witness

Low Seng Wah v PP [1962] MLJ 107 (HC)

(iii) Trap witness

Mohamed Mokhtar v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 22 (HC)
Adzhaar bin Ahmad & Anor v PP [1996] 4 MLJ 85 (HC)

(iv) Evidence of close relatives

Liow Siow Long v PP [1970] 1 MLJ 40 (HC)

Other Relevant Cases

Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy S/O Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 3 MLJ 61

PP v Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim & Anor [2001] 3 MLJ 193
Shanmugam v PP [1963] 1 MLJ 125
PP v Ee Boon Keat [2006] 2 MLJ 633
Pasupathy A/L Kanagasaby v PP [2005] 1 MLJ 493
Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim v PP [2004] 1 MLJ 177
Dalip Bhagwan Singh v PP [1998] 1 MLJ 1

(c) PRIVILEGES (S.121 - 132)

A witness who is competent but not compellable to give Evidence because he is excused from adducing Evidence due
to ‘privilege’

Marital communications (S.122)

Palldas a/l Arumugam v PP [1988] 1 CLJ 661
Rumping v DPP [1964] AC 18

Public interest privilege (S.123- 124)

BA Rao & Ors. v Sapuran Kaur [1978] 2 MLJ 146 (FC)
Gurbachan Singh v PP [1966] 2 MLJ 125 (HC)
Zainuddin Dato’Seri Paduka Haji Marsal v Pengiran Putera Negara Haji Umar & Anor [1997] 4 MLJ 135 (HC)
Re Loh Kah Keng (deceased) [1990] 2 MLJ 126 (HC) – meaning of ‘official confidence’

Protection of the identity of informers (s.125)

R v Rankine [1986] 2 All ER 566
R v Johnson [1989] 1 All ER 121
Comparison with Whistleblower Protection Act 2010

Legal professional privilege (S.126 - 129)

Dato’ Au Ba Chi & Ors v Koh Keng Kheng & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ 445 (HC)
Chua Su Yin & Co v Ng Sung Yee [1991] 2 MLJ 348
PP v Haji Kassim [1971] 2 MLJ 115 (FC)
Re the detention of Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong [1998] 1 MLJ 757 (HC)
15
AG of Hongkong v Lorrain Esme Osman & Ors [1993] 2 MLJ 347 (HC)

Articles:

See Eng Teong. "The Law On Legal Professional Privilege In Malaysia: Any Room For Common Law?" [2002] 1
MLJ xcvii.
Mohd Akram b. Hj. Shair Mohamed. "The Scope Of Legal Professional Privilege Under Section 127 Of The Evidence
Act 1950." [1989] 2 CLJ 67.

Privilege against self-incrimination (S.132)

Chean Siong Guat v PP [1969] 2 MLJ 63 (HC)
Television Broadcasts Ltd v Mandarin Video Holdings Sdn Bhd [1983] 2 MLJ 346 (HC)
A.G of Hong Kong v Zauyah Wan Chik [1995] 2 MLJ 620 (CA)

Waiver (S.126, 128)

Dato’ Au Ba Chi & Ors v Koh Keng Kheng & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ 445
See Teow Chuan v Dato Anthony See Teow Guan [1999] 4 MLJ 42 (HC)
Peter Chi Man Kwong & anor v Ronald Lee Kum Seng [1985] 1 MLJ 21 (CA)

HAKCIPTA/COPYRIGHT
FAKULTI UNDANG-UNDANG
UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

HAKCIPTA TERPELIHARA. TIADA BAHAGIAN DARIPADA TERBITAN INI BOLEH DITERBITKAN SEMULA, DISIMPAN UNTUK PENGELUARAN
ATAU DITUKAR KE DALAM SEBARANG BENTUK ATAU DENGAN SEBARANG ALAT JUGA PUN, SAMA ADA DENGAN CARA ELEKTRONIK,
GAMBAR SERTA RAKAMAN DAN SEBAGAINYA TANPA KEBENARAN BERTULIS DARIPADA PENULIS TERLEBIH DAHULU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16