The court established that circumstantial evidence and common intention among co-participants in a crime are sufficient for a murder conviction, even without direct evidence of each individual's actions.

[1] The appellants Low Kian Boon (or 1st appellant) and Tan Pei Yan (or 2nd appellant) appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal (COA) rendered on 4 April 2009. The decision was the outcome of cross-appeals lodged by the PP as well as the two appellants against the decision of the High Court judge of 25 April 2006 whereby both the appellants were convicted under s 304(b) Penal Code (PC) and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years to take effect from their dates of arrests.

[2] While the appellants appealed against the period of sentence of imprisonment the PP's appeal was against conviction and sentence as the charge as originally made against both the appellants was framed pursuant to s 302 PC. The High Court judge has substituted for a conviction under s 302 the conviction under s 304(b). The COA on appeal reversed the decision of theand reinstated a conviction pursuant to s 302, that is under the original charge. Hence the appeal before us.

[3] The judgments of the High Court and the COA have traced in detail the facts of the prosecution's case (pp 2702-2705 RR vol 2(7) RHC judgment of HC). We do not find the need to repeat. However for the purposes of dealing with the complaints raised in the appeal before us the core details require mention. The deceased at the material time was found dead at the bottom of the staircase leading to the ground floor of his dwelling house. The deceased had succumbed to injuries as he was found with 23 slash wounds on his body including one at the base of his neck. The persons who were also in the house at that time are his wife PW20 and one of his two stepdaughters KSK. The two stepdaughters KSK and KSY are PW20's daughters by a previous marriage.

[4] A parang (exh P22) was recovered following investigations by the police in a room belonging to KSY. Evidence was led by the prosecution that purchase of the parang (exh P22) was made by the appellants. The police investigations resulted in four persons being charged under s 302 PC read with s 34 , namely the appellants, KSK and KSY. At the close of the case for the prosecution KSK and KSY were acquitted while the 1st and 2nd appellants were directed to enter upon their defence which they did on oath.

[5] The evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case was primarily circumstantial. The complaints raised in this appeal rest on the following principal issues (1) findings on facts and (2) common intention and the findings on common intention. It is contended in principle that there are gaps in the facts led by the prosecution such that the prosecution has in effect failed to establish the actus reus in relation to the appellants. This in turn evolves mainly on the fact that the evidence linking the presence of the appellants to the dwelling house where the assailants inflicted the fatal injuries are indirect and mostly inferential in nature. And closely intertwined with this is the alleged paucity of evidence to provide the common intention between the appellants since reliance is emplaced on s 34 PC. We would like to refer to the findings of the High Court and COA on those issues and state our views thereon in the course of the issues being dealt with in this appeal.

The First Principal Issue: Findings Of Facts

[6] The High Court in the grounds of judgment evaluated the following:

PW20 the spouse of the deceased who was present in the house did not identify the person or persons who purportedly were seen by her. The other person who was in the house that is her daughter KSK who was charged together with the appellants could not be relied upon by the prosecution. Hence reliance wa