Each of these three appellants was convicted at the Ipoh Assizes on each of three charges of murder in contravention of section 302 of the Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced, to death and each of them appealed against each of his convictions.

We allowed all these appeals on 23rd Novembet last and intimated we would give our reasons for doing so at a later stage. We now proceed to do so.

Before going further, however, we would repeat what we said in the case of Chew Ming v Public Prosecutor [1960] MLJ 11 where we reiterated the view of Lord Hewart L.C.J. expressed in the case of Rex v Davis 26 Cr App R 95, [1937] 3 All ER 537 that the trial together of more than one charge of murder is undesirable. In the present case the course was taken of trying all three charges against all three appellants together. This was not relied upon by any of the appellants as a ground of appeal and perhaps in the circumstances of the case such a course was unavoidable. Nevertheless we do not wish to remain silent on the point lest we afford ground for any suggestion that we have departed in any way from what we have said previously on the point. Indeed had the evidence in the present case been different from and rather more plentiful than it was the trial Judge might well ave been faced with an almost insuperable task in directing the jury. He would have had to analyse the evidence in such a way that the jury applied it correctly to the nine questions involved, that is to say, the questions of whether each of three accused persons was so concerned in the killing of each of three deceased persons as to make him criminally responsible to the extent of being guilty of murder in each ease.

The facts of the present case can be briefly summarised.

The three women mentioned in the charges were stabbed to death and their bodies were found covered with rubbish at the bottom of a well. They were able-bodied women of the labouring class and it was reasonable to suppose that the killing had been done at the same place and at the same time but would have required more than one killer. There was, too, evidence which made it appear reasonably probable that one of them had immediately prior to her death been in possession of a substantial sum of money and that all three had gone to the place near which their dead bodies were found for the purpose of purchasing stolen tin ore which they hoped to sell later on the strength of what are popularly known as "dulang washers passes". This was strongly contested by the defence. It is, however, tolerably certain that it was made out by the evidence and in view of the conclusions at which we have arrived we do not propose to discuss that evidence in detail.

The result was that what the Court was concerned with was three very shocking murders committed with the object of pecuniary gain. As to that there was little room for doubt. The question of difficulty, however, that had to be decided at the trial was whether on the evidence implicating each of the accused any of them was guilty of any of the three murders.

On these questions the evidence, which was purely circumstantial, could not be described as overwhelming.

The evidence against the first accused, Liew, consisted in the first place of that of two schoolboys, aged 13 and 16 respectively, the children of one of the dead women. They said that the night before the women were killed Liew and the second accused, Boo, came to their house and Boo had some conversation with their mother. The younger boy gave no account of this conversation but the older one said he heard Boo tell his mother that at Kampong Peng Soon (which is near where the bodies were ultimately found) there was about 800 pounds of tin ore and he asked her to bring some money there, presumably to purchase it. Then a Mrs. Lee, the married daughter of another of the murdered women, said that in the late afternoon of the day on which the killing took place Liew and the thir