Common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code allows for joint liability for murder, proven through circumstantial evidence even without direct witness testimony.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 - Charge of murder against two appellants with common intention under Section 34 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence in absence of eye witness testimony - Court affirmed conviction as evidence supported joint intent to murder. (Paras 1-2, 4, 17, 22)

(B) Common intention - The principle of common intention implies that all participants must engage in the criminal act, establishing joint responsibility- Not necessary for all to perform all elements of the crime. (Paras 17, 20)

(C) Circumstantial evidence - The substantial nature of circumstantial evidence must direct to the guilt of the accused without reasonable doubt - Defence arguments not convincing and did not create reasonable doubt against prosecution's case. (Paras 12, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were charged with the murder of a deceased friend in a hotel room. The deceased was found strangled with her hands bound. Circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution connected both appellants to the crime, showing a shared motive to steal personal belongings.

Findings of Court:
The learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing circumstantial evidence and the presence of DNA linking the appellants to the crime scene.

Issues: Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for murder based on common intention? Did the appellants provide credible defences against the prosecution's narrative?

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the collective evidence, including circumstantial and DNA evidence, strongly indicated that both appellants actively participated in the commission of the murder and theft, thereby supporting the conviction.

Result: Appeal dismissed and conviction affirmed.

Table of Content
1. appellants charged with murder. (Para 1 , 1 , 2)

[1] The appellants, Noralina Binti Ahmad Dasuki (first appellant) and Muhammad Khairul Anuar Bin Abdullah (second appellant) were charged together in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur with common intention, to commit murder of Juliana Bte Mohd Fuzi (the deceased), an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code , read together with s 34 of the same Code. The charge preferred against them read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama di antara 23 Mac 2001 jam lebih kurang 10.00 malam dan 24 Mac 2007 jam lebih kurang 8.00 malam di dalam bilik nombor 5133, Tingkat 5, Sunrise Apartment, Wisma lndah, Blok 498, Jalan Tun Razak, di dalam Daerah Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur telah membunuh Juliana Bte Mohd Fuzi, KP No: 87032-56-6054 dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama-sama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan."

[2] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge found that the charge had been proven beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The learned trial Judge convicted both appellants on the charge of murder and sentenced them to the mandatory death penalty prescribed by the law. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellants then appealed to this Court. We heard this appeal. At its conclusion we unanimously dismissed it. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. We now give our reasons for so deciding.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 432

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYANORALINA AHMAD DASUKI & ANOR – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-151-2009]

Common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code allows for joint liability for murder, proven through circumstantial evidence even without direct witness testimony.

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
NORALINA AHMAD DASUKI & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05-151-2009]