The conviction relies heavily on circumstantial evidence lacking a definitive link between the appellant and the crime, leading to reasonable doubt.

[1] The appellant is charged in the High Court as follows:

"That you together with one person who is still at large namely Tiong King Guan (IC 861110-52-6121), on 14 June 2012 at about 1.30 am, at house No 1D, Lorong 33A, Ulu Sg Merah, Sibu, in the district of Sibu, in the State of Sarawak, in furtherance of common intention, by way of conspiracy, abetted one Ling Hoe Ing (IC 881018-13-5871), in the commission of murder of one Wong Jing Kui (IC 810119-13-5215) which offence was committed in consequence of your abetment, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 19 and 302 of the Penal Code read together with s 34 of the same code."

[2] After a full trial, the learned trial Judge in the High Court found that the prosecution had proved a prima facie case against the appellant and ordered the appellant to enter her defence. After hearing the defence case, the learned trial Judge was satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant guilty of an offence under s 302/109 read together with s 34 of the Penal Code ( PC ).

[3] Aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial Judge, the appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which is the appeal before us. After having read the written submissions as well as hearing oral arguments on the issues raised, and perusing through the Appeal Records, we informed parties that we would adjourned the matter for decision on a date to be fixed.

[4] Having given the appeal our utmost thoughts and consideration, we have come to a unanimous decision. The following shall be our decision which shall be the judgment of the Court.

B. Background

[5] Wong Jing Kui (the deceased) and the appellant are husband and wife and was married in 2005. Come 2011, there were cracks in the marriage. Allegations of extramarital affairs against both parties did not improve the situation. Efforts to go for counseling proved futile and ultimately both agreed to go for a divorce. However, at the time of the offence, the parties were still married.

[6] The appellant was alleged to have an affair with Andrew Tiong King Guan (Andrew). In the case before us, Andrew is charged together with the appellant in abetting one Ling Hoe Ing (PW 5), by way of conspiracy to kill the deceased. To date, Andrew is at large.

[7] The facts that led to the charge against the appellant and Andrew started when Andrew offered PW 9 a deal to kill the deceased but PW 9 declined. He then went to PW10 and PW11 but they too, had no intention to kill anyone. However, PW 10 and PW 11 were each paid RM 1000 to ensure that they do not spill the beans to anyone about the deal. They then introduced Andrew to PW 5 who had a serious gambling debt and extremely desperate to pay off his debt.

[8] PW 5 took the deal as Andrew promised to pay him if he successfully kill the deceased and this would help him settled his debt. In pursuing to kill the deceased on 14 June 2012, PW 5 testified that he took instructions from Andrew to enter the appellant's house through the back door as it was not locked and there was no CCTV coverage. According to PW 5, he went to the house around 12 midnight on 14 June 2012. PW 5 said he was also instructed by Andrew to enter the master bedroom and once there, he stabbed the deceased with a knife, who was sleeping on a mattress on the floor. After completing his task, he then went out of the house and informed Andrew that his instructions had been executed.

[9] Not believing the information, Andrew went back to the scene with PW 5 but saw that the police and ambulance were already there.

[10] Post-mortem reports confirmed that the cause of death was a result of stab woun