The distinction between murder and culpable homicide necessitates careful consideration of mens rea, particularly regarding the degree of intention and knowledge under applicable Penal Code provisions.

Vernon Ong FCJ:

Introduction

[1] The appellant was charged with murder under s 302 of the Penal Code . After a full trial at the High Court and hearing of 24 prosecution witnesses and 3 defence witnesses, the appellant was convicted on that charge and sentenced to death. The appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed. This is the unanimous judgment of this Court and it deals with the appeal against conviction and sentence. It does not deal with the question of the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence prescribed under s 302 of the . The constitutional point will be taken up in the separate written judgments of my learned brother Azahar Mohamed CJM and of my learned sister Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ.

[3] Later that day at about 1:02pm, PW9 received a phone call from the appellant informing that he had stabbed the deceased. PW9 subsequently contacted his cousin one Kanakaraaju a/l Ayer (PW14) and asked him to check on the deceased's condition at the appellant's house. On arrival, PW14 found the deceased lying in a pool of blood on the floor in a room on the upper floor of the house. PW14 then made a police report at the Balai Polis Dengkil and called for an ambulance.

[4] Meanwhile, PW10 after being informed of the incident by the appellant's wife PW18, went to the house together with one Pandiyan. They found the deceased in a conscious state and able to talk. In response to PW10's questions as to who assaulted him, the deceased said that it was the appellant alone that did it. Two other witnesses, one Kalaivanan a/l Nadarajah (PW19) and one Gunentren a/l Pandiyan (PW17) who subsequently came on the scene also heard the deceased uttered the appellant's name when the deceased was asked what happened.

[5] The deceased was brought to the Putrajaya Hospital and pronounced dead at 1:45 pm on 4 November 2013. According to a post-mortem examination of the deceased conducted by Dr Siew Sheue Feng (PW4) a forensic medicine specialist ("the pathologist") on 5 November 2013, there were 19 incised wounds on the body of the deceased. The pathologist testified that in his opinion the cause of death was "multiple incised wounds".

Submissions

[6] The appeal against conviction was brought on one principal ground and it is this: that there were infirmities in the evidence of the pathologist in that the evidence of the pathologist was lacking. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction under the third limb of s 300 of the Penal Code could not be supported by the evidence adduced by PW4's evidence. Firstly, PW4's witness statement is essentially a combination of the expert evidence of PW4 and a reproduction of the post-mor