JUDGMENT

Thomson CJ:

[1] Jag-Jit Singh for the appellant: Prosecution invoked Penal Code s 34 but did not frame charge under that section. No suggestion of offence committed in furtherance of a common intention. Ratanlal 18th Edn pp 69, 771 and 821. Bishuwanath v. R AIR 1946 All 153. No evidence of common intention, prearranged plan and motive R v. Sathiah, [1938] MLJ 30.

[2] The learned trial Judge dealt with the question of common intention inadequately and incorrectly. He did not use the expression "common intention." Mahbub Singh v. R LR 72 IA 148. Question put to asessors: "Are you satisfied it was the accused who inflicted the fatal blow?" Answer: "Yes" (by one Assessor). Questions to assessors ignored the question of common intention. Statements made in course of Police investigation were admitted in contravention of Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 6) s 113(i) . Did not comply with Criminal Procedure Code s 113(ii) - as read with Evidence Ordiance s 145. Muthusamy v. Public Prosecutor, [1948] MLJ 57 Learned Judge was wrong as to burden of proof, did not attach sufficient importance to discrepancies, was wrong as a to dying declaration (Evidence Ordinance s 118); was deceased men