Raja Azlan Shah J (delivering oral judgment) :

On 24 January 1969 the appellant was convicted of an offence of causing death by reckless driving under s. 34A of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958 and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of five years.

The only substantial ground of appeal is that the conviction was wholly against the weight of evidence as there was no evidence of reckless driving by the appellant.

The short facts as found by the learned president are as follows:-

On 20 March 1967 at about 5.50 a.m. PW1 and one San Yat Pah (one of the deceased persons) were travelling in a motor car M 5395 being driven by one Lee Choo Chai, another of the deceased, from Kuala Lumpur to Betong. PW1 was seated at the back. It was still dark and the motor car had its headlights on. While it was travelling at 35 miles per hour at second milestone Betong/Kuala Lumpur Road a motor lorry came from the opposite direction with its headlights on. It came at a fast speed and it also encroached into the path of the said car. As a result of this encroachment a collision occurred between the two vehicles and as a result San Yat Pah and Lee Choo Chai died on the spot.

In coming to the finding of fact the learned president relied on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW9.

PW1 testified that the motor lorry encroached on to his side of the road and knocked into his car and after that he lost consciousness. He said that the lorry had encroached about four feet on his side of the road. The lorry had its headlights on. It did not dip its headlights. The lorry was travelling at speed. His evidence had been attacked on the sole ground that he is an interested witness because it so happened that he was a brother of the two deceased persons. It is difficult to accept that suggestion that if a witness is shown to be a relation of the deceased his evidence is tainted. Testimony of close relations is not tainted if it is otherwise reliable in the sense that the witnesses are competent witnesses who were at the scene of the occurrence and could have seen what had happened. But if it is proved that they are not entirely disinterested witnesses, e.g. they are either partisans of the complainant or are in any way inimical to the accused, then their testimony is tainted and requires corroboration if to be acted upon. In my view the circumstance relied upon by Counsel is not sufficient to cast any doubt on the evidence of PW1, who is not proved to be inimical to the appellant.

PW2 said that the accident took place some 50 yards ahead of him. He did not see the impact because as soon as the collision took place there were no more lights coming from both the vehicles.

PW3 who was a weeder also saw the accident. At the crucial time she was cycling on her correct side of the road towards the direction of Kuala Lumpur. The lorry driven by the appellant passed her. It was then travelling about four - five feet from her. Its headlights were not dipped. She then heard the sound of a collision about 40 feet behind her and she looked back. She saw the lorry was driven to the edge of the road. It had moved to its left hand side. Her evidence is virtually uncontroverted. Under such circumstances it is inconceivable that the witness, who had no reason for false implication could have deposed against the appellant on any other ground save her own experience of having witnessed the accident.

PW9, the Police witness, found broken pieces of glass on the left hand side of the road as one faces Kuala Lumpur. There were also a few pieces of red glass which came from motor car M 5395. The distance between this spot and the edge of the road is six feet. PW9 said that the width of the road is 17' 4". The width of the lorry is 7' 5" and the width of the motor car was 4' 3".

PW7 who it the time was driving his lorry BD 965 from Ketari to Kuala Lumpur testified that it was still dark