Common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code applies even if participants are not present at the crime scene.

[1] This is an appeal by the four appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 13 May 2013, dismissing the appellants' appeal against the conviction and sentence by the High Court.

[2] The four appellants were charged under s 302 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the same Code in respect of the death of one Catherine Chong Jang Joon ("the deceased"). The charge against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants reads as follows:

"That you, together with two others still at large, on the 9th day of August, 2007, at about 1.30am at a spot at the Car Park 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 CHONG JAN JUN (I/C No: 750812-13-5326) (F), 32 years old, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the same Code."

[3] The 4th appellant was later charged separately. The charge reads as follows:

"That you, together with GOH WEE KHIAN (L), FAROSE TAMURE MOHAMAD KHAN (L), ABDUL HADI SABENI (L) and one still at large, on the 9th day of August, 2007, at about 1.30am at a spot at the Car Park 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 CHONG JAN JUN (I/C No: 750812-13-5326) (F), 32 years old, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the same Code."

[4] The cases were heard jointly by the High Court and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals and affirmed the decision of the High Court. Hence, the present appeals.

[5] In this judgment, we will refer to the appellants as they were referred to in the High Court, namely Goh Wee Kian (the 1st accused), Farose Tamure Mohamad Khan (the 2nd accused), Abdul Hadi Sarbeni (the 3rd accused) and Saidina Sarbeni (the 4th accused).

The Prosecution's Case

[6] The prosecution's case is well-narrated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal (see Goh Wee Khian & Ors v. PP, [2013] 6 MLJ 48 ). Briefly, the facts are as follows. The deceased was the girlfriend of the 1st accused. Sometime in 2007, the 1st accused met one Sali Nimatullah Roslan ("PW1") to ask him to inflict injury on the deceased. PW1 declined, and instead introduced the 1st accused to the 2nd accused. The 1st accused proposed the same plan to the 2nd accused, who agreed to execute the plan.

[7] The 1st accused brought PW1 and the 2nd accused to the deceased's house at Batu Kawa, where the 1st accused pointed out the deceased's house. From Batu Kawa all the three of them went to Semariang. There was a further discussion between the 1st and 2nd accused persons in the 1st accused person's car. The details of the discussion were unknown to PW1. Before leaving, the 1st accused gave both the 2nd accused and PW1 RM50.00 each and told them to wait for his telephone call.

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

[9] A day later, the 2nd accused met PW1 at Kampung Gersik and told him that the 1st accused had again requested them to do the job.

[10] Following this, PW1 was instructed