Joint criminal liability under Section 34 permits prosecution to hold all participants accountable for a crime committed in furtherance of a common intention, regardless of individual actions.

Introduction

[1] The appellant and two other persons, namely Raja Mohd Hafiz bin Raja Raja Shuib and Nobi Hussein bin Abutar, were charged with the offence of kidnapping for ransom under s 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961 (Revised 1989) . The charge read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 16 Mac 2014 jam lebih kurang 4.00 pagi bertempat di No 31, Jalan Pasar Baru, Off Jalan Meru Klang, dalam daerah Klang, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, dengan niat bersama hendak membuat tebusan, menculik tiga orang lelaki bernama Md Gholam Faruque (No Passport: F0117271), Mohamed Rafik (No Passpot: Tiada) dan Sojib (No Passpot: Tiada), serta mengurung mereka dengan salah di dalam bilik hotel No 48, Hotel Comfort No 26A/40, Leboh Tapah, Off Jalan Goh Hock Huat, Klang bagi maksud mendapatkan wang tebusan sebanyak RM50,000.00. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 3 Akta Penculikan 1961 (Semakan 1989) dan dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan."

[2] The charge against Raja Mohd Hafiz bin Raja Shuib was withdrawn on 14.43.2017 as he passed away. The trial proceeded only against the appellant and Nobi Hussein. The appellant and Raja Mohd Hafiz bin Raja Shuib (deceased) are Malaysian citizens whereas Nobi Hussein is a Myanmar citizen. At the conclusion of the case, the learned High Court Judge convicted the appellant and Nobi Hussein and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellant has appealed against both the conviction and sentence.

Case Of The Prosecution

[3] The kidnap victims are Md Gholam Faruque (SP3), Mohamed Rafik and Sojib. All three are foreigners. Gholam is a Bangladeshi passport holder. The other two victims did not possess any travel documents but were believed to be Bangladeshis. These two victims were not called by the prosecution to give evidence as they had returned to their country of origin by the time of the trial.

[4] The prosecution called a total of eight witnesses. The principal witnesses were Gholam (SP3), his son, Mahadi Hasan (SP4) and the complainant, one Arinawati binti Maliki (SP1). The evidence of the prosecution as summarised by the learned High Court Judge is as follows.

[5] Arinawati and her husband went to a minimarket in Klang on the date and time stated in the charge to purchase chicken. Arinawati remained in the car whereas her husband went inside the minimarket. After some time, Arinawati noticed that Gholam and his nephew Sojib emerging from the minimarket. She referred to Gholam as "Faruque" and identified him in Court. They were accompanied by three men. She was acquainted with Gholam as he worked in the minimarket. Arinawati and her husband left soon after to run other errands. Mahadi Hassan later called the husband of Arinawati and told him that his father was taken away by the police.

[6] After meeting Mahadi Hassan in person, Arinawati called one "Inspector Suhaimi" (identified later as the appellant) on the phone asking for "help" to ascertain whether Gholam, Sojib and one Rafiq were detained by the police. The appellant inquired with Arinawati about the licence of the minimarket and the passport status of Gholam, Sojib and Rafiq. He offered to "settle" the problem. Arinawati decided to lodge a police report on behalf of Mahadi Hassan because the latter was not fluent in Malay.

[7] The star witness for the prosecution was Gholam. He worked in the minimarket as a deliveryman. At the time in question, he was in the minimarket with his son, Mahadi Hassan, Sojib, Rafiq and some