Collective responsibility under common intention applies when participants contribute to a crime's execution, affirming convictions despite varying degrees of direct involvement.

[1] The four appellants were convicted and sentenced to death by the Kuching High Court for the murder of a young lady, Catherine Chong Jan Jun on 9 August 2007 (the deceased).

[2] The four appellants were separately charged in two separate cases, namely Kuching Criminal Trial No 45-4-2007 and 45-7-2007.

[3] In Kuching Criminal Trial No 45-4-2007 involving the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd appellants, the charge reads:

"That you together with three others, on 9 August 2007 at about 1.30am at a spot at the car part of the Central Park Commercial Centre, in the district of Kuching, in the State of Sarawak, in furtherance of common intention of you all, committed murder by causing the death of Catherine Jan Jun (I/C No 750812-13-5326(f), 32 years old and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the same code."

[4] The 4th appellant was charged in a separate case under Kuching High Court Criminal Trial No 45-7-2007. The charge preferred against him was similar with the charge against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants.

[5] The two cases were heard together before the learned trial judge and all four appellants were found guilty as per the charges.

[6] Upon their conviction and sentence, all four appellants have filed separate appeals. Hence, the present four appeals before us. We heard the appeals together and reserved our judgment on the same.

[7] We now give our judgment.

[8] At the outset, we feel it necessary to dwell into the facts of the case, perhaps with some details.

[9] The 1st appellant hatched a plan to cause hurt to the deceased who was his girlfriend.

[10] He approached PW1 (Sali Nimatullah bin Roslan) to carry out his plan. PW1 declined but instead took the 1st appellant to meet the 2nd appellant. The 1st appellant made a similar proposal to the 2nd appellant and the 2nd appellant agreed after some discussions.

[11] Later, the 1st appellant brought PW1 and the 2nd appellant to the deceased's house at Batu Kawa where they were shown the deceased's house. From Batu Kawa all the three then went to Semariang where there was a further discussion between the 1st and the 2nd appellants taking place in the 1st appellant's car the details of which were unknown to PW1. Before leaving that night, the 1st appellant gave both the 2nd appellant and PW1 RM50.00 each and told them to wait for his telephone call.

[12] The next day, the 2nd appellant went over to PW1's house and told him that the 1st appellant has called him and has cancelled the plan as there were others willing to do the job.

[13] A day later, the 2nd appellant met with PW1 at Kampung Gersik and told him that the 1st appellant had again requested them to do the job of causing injury to the face of the deceased.

[14] Following this, PW1 was instructed by the 2nd appellant to rope in the 4th appellant. PW1 went over to the 4th appellant's house in Bintawa Hilir and told the 4th appellant to meet the 2nd appellant at Kampung Gersik. Together with PW1, the 4th appellant met the 2nd appellant at Kampung Gersik and they had a discussion.

[15] Later, the 1st appellant arrived and the discussion continued between the 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants. PW1 was not involved in the discussion.

[16] After the discussion, all of them went over to a pub at Ang Cheng Ho, Padungan in the 1st appellant's car. The 1st appellant wanted to identify the deceased to the 2nd appellant. After identifying the deceased, all of them went back to Kampung Bintawa Hilir. Here, the 4th appellant went to see his younger brother, the 3r