JUDGMENT

Kang Hwee Gee JC:

The 1st appellant in case No. 74-25-85 and the 2nd and 3rd appellants in case No. 74-46-88 were charged in the Sessions Court, Ipoh with the offence of causing grievous hurt under s. 326 of the Penal Code. As both the cases arose from the same transaction respecting the same complainant they were tried jointly.

The brief facts of the two cases may be summarised as follows:

The complainant Balbir Singh was travelling in a van being driven by another person Shimar Singh along a road in Tanjong Rambutan on 9 February 1986 at about 7.30 p.m. They were on their way home from work. On reaching a stretch facing a football field in front of house No. 111 North Ward, they heard the crashing sound of a stone being thrown onto the rear portion of their van. They stopped to investigate. On alighting from the van the complainant was attacked by the 1st appellant with a knife described by the complainant to measure about three feet long and two inches wide. The knife sliced the left palm of the complainant almost severing it when he tried to block a blow from the 1st appellant. It also caused fractures to the distal part of the carpal bones. The 2nd and 3rd appellants joined in the attack on the complainant. They were each armed with a piece of wood. The 2nd appellant hit the complainant on his chest while the 3rd appellant hit him on his back. All the appellants then escaped from the scene.

The case against the appellants rested solely on the evidence of the complainant as the only witness of the incident. The other person Shamir Singh, the driver of the van could not be traced.

The 1st appellant was arrested only some 5 months later at a coffee shop in Chemor after the complainant spotted him there and informed police of his presence there. The 2nd and 3rd appellants were arrested some 10 months later. The complainant identified the 1st appellant and the 2nd and 3rd appellants at two separate identification parades conducted subsequently after the respective arrest.

It was clear from the evidence of the Senior Medical Officer Dr. Manjit Singh (PW1) that apart from the deep incised wound the complainant sustained fractures on his left palm which therefore brings the injury within the 6th designation of "grievous hurt" under s. 320 of the Penal Code. It was also clear that no other injuries were found on the complainant although he claimed to have been hit on his chest by the 2nd appellant and on the back by the 3rd appellant.

A cautioned statement was recorded from the 1st appellant and although exculpatory was admitted into evidence at the instance of the defence in the course of the prosecution's case. In the statement the 1st appellant denied being involved in the attack but admitted knowing the complainant before the incident as they were staying in the same kampong.

At the close of the prosecution's case all the three appellants were called to enter their defence as charged. The appellants put up a defence of alibi, the requisite notice under s. 402A(1) of the CPC having been duly served earlier on the prosecution by the respective appellant. The learned Sessions Judge considered their evidence of alibi but found that they did not raise a reasonable doubt and accordingly rejected them. He found the 1st appellant guilty under s. 326 as charged. The 2nd and 3rd appellants however were found guilty under s. 325 of the Penal Code, since according to him, they only used wood to attack the complainant. The 1st appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and 3 strokes of whipping. The 2nd and 3rd appellant were respectively sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

The appeals by the appellants were against both conviction and sentence.

A number of grounds were filed in their petition of appeal but before me defence Counsel confined his appeal only to the following issues:

1. The identification parades were conducted 6 months in the case of the 1st appellant and 10 months in the case of the 2nd and 3rd accused, after the alleg