Ong Hock Sim FJ (delivering judgment of the Court):

The appellant was tried in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur on a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under s. 304 of the Penal Code, for causing the death of Robert Kut Lunk Lee. At the close of the prosecution the learned trial Judge found that no case had been made out against a co-accused who was thereupon acquitted. The charge against the appellant was then reduced to voluntarily causing grievous hurt, under s. 325, upon which he was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment.

The tragic event occurred in the Flora Palace Bar at Jalan Raja Laut in Kuala Lumpur at about 11 p.m. on 20 August 1970. Certain facts were not in dispute. The appellant went into this drinking saloon at about 9 p.m. and occupied table No. 15 with three companions. He was a chief inspector of police but was of duty and not in uniform. At about 11 p.m. a party of five, including Robert Lee, the deceased came in and occupied an adjoining table No. 11, about six feet away. Shortly afterwards some glasses were thrown and smashed, fragments of which were subsequently found scattered near tables Nos. 11 and 15. The deceased and one of his party went up to table No. 15 to expostulate. The appellant denied having thrown anything. He could at this juncture have announced to the deceased his identity and rank, but it was perfectly clear that he did not.

Of what happened thereafter there were two conflicting stories told by the main prosecution witnesses. Teoh Kim Seng, a contractor, and Teo Ching Siong, a tin mine manager, both of whom were members of the deceased's party, gave one version agreeing in all material particulars as to how the deceased came by his fatal injuries at the hands of the appellant. The trial Judge, without any acknowledgment that he accepted their evidence, came to a finding of fact which in effect stamped the evidence, came to a finding of fact which in effect stamped the evidence of these two witnesses true on this vital issue. In his judgment the Judge nowhere discounted or expressed any doubt or disbelief of their testimony.

The appellant told a different story, which again tallied in all material respects with that of a prosecution witness, Kwok Kit Leng, then an inspector of Police in the CID, Intelligence Branch, Selangor, since retired and employed by Securicor in Singapore. The Judge took this view of the appellant's evidence:-

As regards the evidence of the accused as a whole, I de accept the evidence stated by him regarding the circumstances that led to the argument, but I am convinced that he was not telling the truth regarding the circumstances pertaining to the blows delivered on the deceased after the deceased was disarmed.

It will be observed that the above remarks drew a clear line between two stages in the events of that night. He believed the appellant's evidence as to event preceding the infliction of fatal injuries on the deceased. Such evidence was not in effect material in determining the guilt or innocence of the appellant, nor was it in conflict with the testimony of Teoh Kim Seng and Teo Ching Siong. In what was crucial to the success of the appellant's defence, however, the Judge unhesitatingly rejected his evidence. Such evidence tallied closely with the evidence of Inspector Kwok Kit Leng. It goes without saying, therefore, that the Judge was equally convinced that this inspector was by no means a truthful witness.

The evidence of Teoh Kim Seng was as follows:-

We went to table 11. After we had sat down, a waitress came and asked us what we wanted to drink. Robert Lee ordered half a bottle of Martell. She brought the brandy for us. After she had poured out the brandy, I heard the sound of the breaking of a glass near our table. I did not see. No one from our table did anything. We just kept quiet. After a while I heard the breaking of another glass. The glass hit the leg of Robert Lee. Robert Lee stood up a