Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

The appellant was charged at the High Court, Sandakan for the offence of murder under s. 302 of the Penal Code.

The charge reads:

That you, on the 5th day of July, 1997 at about 4.00 p.m. at Capital Veneers & Plywood Sdn. Bhd., a factory located at Mile 9, Jalan Labuk, in the District of Sandakan, in the State of Sabah, did commit murder by causing the death of one ISNIDIL B. RASIN, 25 years old male, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code (FMS Cap 45).

He was found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly by the learned judge. He was sentenced to death.

We heard his appeal against the conviction. We dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and the sentence. We now proceed to give our reasons for upholding the conviction and the sentence.

The learned judge in his judgment set out the necessary ingredients that the prosecution has to prove against the appellant in order to sustain a conviction under s. 302 of the Penal Code.

The ingredients are:

(1) That Isnidil bin Rasin is dead;

(2) That Isnidil bin Rasin died as a result of injuries sustained by him;

(3) That the injuries of Isnidil bin Rasin were caused or the result of the act of the appellant;

(4) That in inflicting the injuries upon Isnidil bin Rasin, the appellant either:

(a) caused them with the intention of causing death; or

(b) caused them with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as the appellant knew to be likely to cause the death; or

(c) caused them with the intention of causing bodily injuries and such bodily injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

There is ample evidence to show that the dead person as in the charge is Isnidil bin Rasin (deceased). The deceased was identified by his father (PW8) and Asiah bte Dollah (PW7). The defence on the evidence in the record, did not dispute as to this fact either. The first ingredient was therefore satisfied.

As regards to the second ingredient, there is sufficient evidence from Dr. Mohammad Khalid Yusuf (PW3) who conduced the post-mortem on the deceased. He recorded his findings and prepared a post-mortem report which was produced as exh. P27 by the prosecution. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was:

1a. Stab wound in the ventricle of heart causing haemothorax.

1b. Two stab wounds on right lung.

Further, PW3 stated that he found the following injuries on the deceased, namely:

(i) one stab wound at the left side of the chest. It was about 3cm. in width on entry and about 7cm. in depth. It penetrated into the left ventricle of the heart;

(ii) two wounds at the right side of the chest. They were also about 3cm. in width and 7cm. in depth. Both penetrated into the right lung; and

(iii) one wound on the left upper arm. It was a slashed wound of about 3cm. in width and 1cm. in depth.

PW3 confirmed that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. Hence the second ingredient was also satisfied.

The important ingredient for consideration would be ingredient (3).

To establish this ingredient, the prosecution called several witnesses including a chemist (PW2) and two eve-witnesses namely, Samiah bte Tukiman (PW4) and Maimunah bte Butunga (PW5).

The prosecution case in respect of this ingredient can be briefly stated as follows.

The deceased, the appellant, PW4 and PW5 worked in the factory of Capital Veneer and Plywood Sdn. Bhd. Besides them, there were also other workers namely, Seharan, Abdal and two others whom PW4 could not remember who they were.

PW4 went on to outline the duties of each of the workers she mentioned on that fateful day, that is, 5 July 1997. PW4 worked in the "Roteri" section of the factory together with the other workers. The appellant was the operator and she identified him in court. The other operator was Abdal. PW4, PW5, Seharan and the deceased were responsible for affixing tapes on the veneers in order to preve