Murder

Actus Reus

✔ S 300 of PC talks about murder. The actus reus which can be found in this Section is
“causing death” by the act of the accused.
PP v Manimaran a/l Amas and Ors

● Facts: The appellants killed the victim by using a parang, and they had robbed away
the victim’s belogings. The death of victim was due to excessive bleeding of the slash
wounds. The forensic expert was of the view that the slash wounds were sufficient in
the ordinary cause of nature to cause death.
● Held: The court held that the act of the appellants had fulfilled the element for murder
under S 300 of PC, namely, causing the death of the victim by their positive act.
Mohd Asmadi bin Yusof v PP

● Facts: The appellant used a brick to hit the head of victim, and even when the victim
fell to the ground the appellant continued attacking the deceased with his hands and
legs. Later, the victim succumbed to his injuries and dies. The appellant was also
convicted for murder.
● Held: The prosecution had successfully proved since the death of the victim had
taken place and such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the
appellant.
Pendakwa Raya v Khairul Adli bin Ramli and Ors

● Held: The three accused were charged with murder for causing death of the victim
under S 300 of PC. The court held that the accused were liable because the element of
actus reus was established upon the victim was first hit by the accused.

Mens Rea

✔ The limbs under (a), (b) and (c) are generally classified as mens rea of intention with
different degree whereas limb (d) indicates mens rea of knowledge.
1. Limb (a)

● S 300(a) of PC provides that mens rea for murder is established if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Tan Hoi Hung

● Principle: Intention is defined as when a man is consciously shaping his conduct as to

achieving his conduct to bring out a certain event. Intention can be inferred from the
facts of the case namely from the nature of the injury, the place of injury, the
method of infliction and the use or nature of weapon.
Mohd Yazid bin Hashim v PP

● Facts: In this case, the injuries which caused the death of deceased were the result of
several successive blows with a piece of wood. Later, the accused was convicted of
murder and he went to appeal by contending that the deceased did not die
immediately showed that he did not intend to kill the deceased for if he did, he would
have 'finished her'.
● Held: The Court dismissed the appeal because the nature of the deceased’s head
injuries which include the fracture of her skull were ample evidence of the accused’s
intention. Hence, there is principle established that intention can be inferred where the
killing is committed in particularly gruesome, violent and savage manner. or when
extensive wounds are found on the body of the deceased.
Tan Buck Tee v PP

● Facts: The accused and the deceased had a fight before. Subsequently, the accused
then attacked the ceased who was asleep with an axe. Later, the deceased was found
dead in the doorway of his cubicle. He had five substantial incised wounds on his
body, three in front and two behind. Two of these had penetrated to the heart and one
of them to the liver, both organs being badly damaged.
● Held: The Court held that the accused had intention to cause the death of deceased
because he attacked the victim at a state where he cannot defend himself, by using a
weapon, axe which is heavy in nature and inflicted injury on his chest which
penetrated the lung and liver. In the view of the court, whoever inflicted such injury
by using such manner must have intended to kill the person.
Ghazali Mat Ghani v PP

✔ Facts: The accused shot the deceased at a close range with a rifle, and this resulted
the death of victim. The cause of death was a fatal shot in the heart. Subsequently, the
accused was convicted of murder and he went to appeal.
✔ Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of murder as the accused had
inflicted the injury to the heart of the victim and caused his death. The judge further
stated that a deliberate use of a dangerous weapon would lead to an irresistible
inference that one’s intention is to cause death.
2. Limb (b)

✔ S 300(b) of PC provides that mens rea for murder is established if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the victim. In other word, it means
that the accused must have special knowledge of the victim and knows that his act
will result the death of the victim even though such bodily injury would not cause the
death of any person in good health. This knowledge required refers to a certainty
which derives from the accused knowledge of the victim’s situation or health
condition.
✔ This can be illustrated by Illustration (b).

● S 300(b) is very rarely invoked in practice for the simple reason that cases involving
such a high degree of culpability will often generate an inference that the accused
intended to kill, namely S 300(a) or an inference of knowledge under S 300(d).
Mohd Naki bin Mohd Yusuf v PP (not really applicable for this limb, not sure why lecturer
put this case)

● Facts: There was a quarrel between the appellant with the deceased and that the
appellant then assaulted and hit the deceased with an iron rod. Later, the deceased
died and his death was due to injuries inflicted upon a vital of his body which was his
head.
● Held: The Court held that the accused was liable since there was clearly an intention
to cause death under para (a) of S 300 or the intention to injure knowing that such act
would cause death under para (b).
3. Limb (c)

● S 300(c) of PC provides that mens rea for murder is established if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and such
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
● Illustration (c)

Mahadzir bin Yusof & Ors v PP

● Facts: The appellants assaulted the deceased with parang and hit him with the
wooden baseball bat. Later, the deceased died and the appellants fled away from the
scene.
● Held: The Court held that under S 300 (c) there are four matters must be
determined. Firstly, whether the bodily injury present. Second, the nature of the
injury suffered by the deceased must be determined. Third, whether the injury is
 sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Lastly, whether the injury
caused by the accused intentionally.
Yap Biew Hian v PP

● Principle: The Court gave a guideline that a sufficient injury means there is a high
probability of death in such instance.
PP v Aziz Mat Shah

● Facts: In this case, the accused was charged for murdering a 3 years old child. The
accused after work had slapped the deceased, even punched her in the stomach as well
as chest. Not only that, the accused also used a pillow to cover the deceased’s face
before she stopped crying.
● Held: The Court held that the sufficiency is the high probability of death in the
ordinary way of nature, and when exist and death ensues followed by the intention to
cause such injury, the offence is murder.
PP v Foo Ing Hwa

● Facts: The accused used a piece of wood to hit the deceased which later led to the
death of deceased.
● Held: The court held that the intention of accused in causing death was not
important under S.300(c) of the Penal Code. As long as the bodily injury towards
the victim is done intentionally by the accused and it is sufficient in ordinary cause of
nature to cause death, then the accused will be liable for murder.
Mohd Isa bin Mohd Nor v PP

● Facts: There was struggle between the accused and the victim. During the struggle,
the accused took a Rambo knife near to him when the victim was holding an iron and
came nearer to him. Later, the accused stabbed the victim accidentally and the victim
died in her office after the accused leaved. The accused was then charged under S.302
of PC. However, the accused contended that he had no intention to kill the deceased
since he held the knife to defend himself.
● Held: The Court dismissed the accused’s appeal and held that when the accused
pierced the victim to her heart, then he had the intention to cause bodily injury that is
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of victim.
PP v Visuvanathan

● Facts: There was a fight between the accused and the deceased. After being
separated, the accused pulled out a concealed knife, stabbed the deceased in the chest
and ran away. The deceased collapsed on the road and died. Subsequently, it was
found that the cause of death was the stab wound into the deceased’s heart.
 ● Held: The Court upheld that conviction on the ground that the accused had
intentionally caused bodily injury that was sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to
cause the death of deceased by stabbing to his heart with a weapon.
PP v Mohd Abbas

● Facts: The accused was charged with murder of 10 years old girl who had been
strangled while being raped by the accused.
● Held: The Court held that the accused was liable for murder and such murder falls
under all limbs in S 300 of PC. This was because the act done by the accused with
intention, sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause death or the act known to him
to be imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities to cause death.
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab

● Facts: The accused thrust a pear into the abomen of the deceased. Later, this injury
caused the deceased to death. The accused was convicted of murder under S 300.
However, the accused contended that he had the intention to cause injury only.
● Held: High Court upheld that conviction because the injury cause by the act of
accused was sufficiently to cause death in the ordinary course of nature in the opinion
of the doctor. In addition, such injury was also done deliberately by the accused
himself.
PP v Abdul Razek Dalek

● Facts: The deceased was stabbed by the accused and her throat slit in the incident.
Later, the accused was charged with murder of his estranged wife under S 300 of PC.
● Held: The Court held that the prosecution had proved and further stated that as for
intention, it could be inferred from the act of the accused. In this case, the accused
caused bodily injury to the deceased that was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause not only death but certain death. The act was the proof of intention.

4. Limb (d)

✔ S 300(d) of PC provides that mens rea for murder is established if the person had
knowledge that the act he committing is imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death or bodily injury which likely to cause death, and there is no
excuse for incurring such a risk.
✔ Illustration (d)

William Tan Cheng Eng v PP

 ● Held: An act is sufficient to amount to murder under S 300 of PC only if the person
who commits death results, knew that the act he committing was so imminently
dangerous that it would in all probability cause death or bodily injury which likely to
cause death.
PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee

● Facts: The accused shot a lady who refused to come out from her car. Later, the
accused was convicted of murder under S 300 and he went to appeal by contending
that he was drunk at the time he took the shot which had hit the vital organ of the
deceased.
● Held: The Court dismissed the appeal since the accused knew that his act of shotting
at the deceased at such close quarters was so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death or bodily injury which likely to cause death. In addition, the
act of the accused in discharging a gun was wholly inexcusable.

Exceptions for Murder

● All the exceptions under S 300 of the PC only serve as a partial defence. (Reduce
charges/ punishment, not full acquittal/complete defence)
● It is in the nature of “formal” mitigation, namely to reduce the charges of murder to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
● Looi Wooi Saik v PP
- In this case, the appellant was convicted for the murder of a woman under S 302
of the PC and was sentenced to death.
- On appeal, the court held that if the case falls within any of the “special
exceptions” under S 300 of the PC, which are special only to the offence of
murder, then such charges shall be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
*This case focuses on Exception 1 (Grave & sudden provocation)

Burden of proof
● In a criminal trial, the prosecution has the duty and burden to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt as enshrined under S 105 of the Evidence Act.
● However, the onus to prove whether any fact falls under any of the Exceptions under
S 300 of the PC is shifted upon the accused as part of his defence.
● Ikau anak Mail v PP
 - Due to accusation done by deceased during a dispute, the appellant pulled out a
knife and stabbed the deceased to death. Subsequently, the appellant was
convicted for murder.
- On appeal, Exception 1 under S 300 of the PC was raised and the court established
that in order to succeed in a defence of grave and sudden provocation, it is
necessary in law for the defence to satisfy the court. This means that the accused
has to satisfy the court that the defence is applicable.
● Note that for defences, the burden of proof is of balance of probability.

5 exceptions under S 300 of the PC

1. Grave and Sudden Provocation
* Provocation: An action or speech that makes someone angry, especially
deliberately.
● From PC – Exception 1 – Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the
death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person
by mistake or accident.
● In order to successfully raise this Exception, the are several conditions which must be
fulfilled:
i. T he grave and sudden provocation complained must have caused the accused to
lose his self-control.
ii. The provocation must be from the victim/ deceased.
iii. The provocation should not have been sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender. This means that the offender should not be the one who started the
argument.
iv. The provocation is not given by someone who does something in obedience to
the law, or who is a public servant lawfully carrying out his duties. (Exp. Words
uttered by authorized personnel when carrying out their duty)
v. The provocation is not given by someone lawfully exercising his right to private
defence. (Interrelated with point iii)

*Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from
amounting to murder is a question of fact.

● Lorensus Tukan v PP
- In this case, the appellant admitted that he had killed the deceased but relied on
the defence of grave and sudden provocation.
- Seah SCJ stated that the test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a
reasonable man would be so provoked as to lose his self-control if he belongs to
the same class of society as the accused and being placed in the same situation.
The judge further mentioned that this is a question of fact as for what a
 reasonable man will do in certain circumstances is dependent/ influenced upon the
customs, manners, way of life, traditional value, etc.
● PP v Lim Eng Kiat (Brunei case)
- In this case, the accused had strangled his wife and caused her to death. Later, he
was charged for murder under S 302 of the PC. However, he raised the defence of
grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 of S 300 of the PC as he
alleged that he was provoked by his wife where she had admitted in her
commitment in adultery and even insulted the size of his penis.
- The court held that an ordinary and reasonable man of the accused’s race, class
and background would have losing his control and provoked in same situation.
Therefore, his charge shall be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

* The provocation must not only be looked at its gravity but also to the suddenness which
had deprived the accused his power of self-control.

● Che Omar bin Mohd Akhir v Public Prosecutor

- The accused, after spotted his wife being with another man, asked her to return
home with him. However, his wife rejected him loudly and roughly. She even
uttered that the man is now ‘her man’ and asked Che Omar to leave Sarawak and
never return. Due to anger, Che Omar stabbed Maray to death. Later, he was later
convicted for the murder and he went to appeal by contending that the murder was
mitigated by the provocation offered by the deceased. He claimed that her words
and actions had caused him to feel demeaned.
- The federal court held that the only provocation was a suspicion of adultery and
such provocation was found gradual and not sudden.
*This case emphasized that a gradual and accumulated provocation is not sufficient to
constitute a defence under Exception 1 of S 300 of the PC.

2 main elements of Exception 1:

a. “Grave” – it is a question of fact on whether the provocation was grave enough that a
reasonable man would likely to lose his or her self-control due to such provocation?
● If the answer is in yes, then the provocation is said to be grave.

● PP v Abdul Razak Dalek

- In this case, the deceased was stabbed by the accused and her throat slit. Later, the
accused was charged for under S 300 of the PC. However, the accused claimed
that he lost his self-control after being provoked by his wife, saying that they were
no longer husband and wife.
- The court used the reasonable man test to determine whether a reasonable man
would likely to lose his self-control under such circumstances. If the answer is
yes, then the provocation is said to be grave. In addition, the court stated that there
 are factors that may contribute to the gravity of the provocation to which it
includes the circumstances in which the provocation was offered, any past conduct
between the parties and the relationship of the parties themselves. (Harsh gravity –
grave)
● Chan Kwee Fong v PP
- There was a fight between the accused and deceased. The accused first slapped the
deceased’s girlfriend and later stabbed the deceased four times. However, the
accused managed to run away but was caught up again by the accused and being
stabbed on the back again. Eventually, the deceased died and the accused was
charged for murder under S 302 of the PC. However, the accused claimed that he
lost his self-control after being provoked by the deceased.
- The court held that none of the acts referred to by the accused were sufficient to
constitute grave and sudden provocation. Even if the cumulative effect of those
events had angered and provoked the accused, there was a sufficient cooling
period for him to regain his self-control.

b. “Sudden” – unexpected; it has to occur within a short period of time before the killing.
● Chong Teng v Public Prosecutor
- The accused had a fight with the deceased because the deceased had taken away
his wife. During the fight, the accused killed the deceased and was later charged
for murder under S 302 of the PC. However, the accused raised the defence of
Exception 1 under S 300 of the PC.
- The court interpreted the severity of term ‘grave’ as harsh gravity. As for the term
‘sudden’, it is deemed as something unexpected which occurred within a short
period of time before the act of killing. The court further mentioned that the
longer the time gap between homicidal act and the provocative episode, the more
likely the accused would have acted to kill due to revenge.
● PP v Abdul Razak Dalek
- (Refer above)
- The court stated that for the element of ‘sudden’ to be established, the said act of
provocation must be unexpected and occurred within a short period of time before
the killing.

Other relevant cases

● T Paramasparan a/l Thanigajalam v Public Prosecutor
- There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, his wife on the
ground that she had an affair with his brother. During the quarrel, the accused
hit the deceased due to anger. Unfortunately, the deceased later died due to
traumatic shock caused by extensive injuries given to her by the accused. The
accused was later charged for murder but he raised the defence that the confession
 of deceased by telling him that she had an affair with his brother provoked him to
hit her.
- The Court rejected the defence as the accused was in complete control of his
actions throughout the episode of the beating of his wife. Moreover, the
confession made by the deceased was not grave and sudden enough to deprive
him of the self-control. Hence, the defence of grave and sudden provocation was
rejected.
● Loh Yoon Fatt v Public Prosecutor
- There was a dispute between the accused and the deceased. Even after the end of
dispute, the accused grab a metal steering lock and hit the deceased on the back of
his head and this caused his death. The accused applied for the defence
provocation under Exception 1 of S 300 of the PC.
- The court held that such defense could not be raised as there was a cooling off
period when the accused went to take the metal steering lock from his car.
● Chian Swee Ong v PP
- In this case, the love confession of appellant was rejected by the deceased, and he
was even mocked by the deceased. Due to the response given, the appellant was
angered and killed the deceased. Subsequently, the accused was charged for
murder under S 302 of the PC and he went to appeal, raising the defence of
provocation.
- The court rejected the defence and stated a reasonable man would not have
acted in such a way as how the accused did due to a mere rejection of love.
● PP v Surbir Gole (Contradicting case – in terms of “sudden”; but a good law)
- In this case, the respondent claimed that he had stabbed the deceased as he had
lost his self-control due to the cumulative provocation made by the deceased. He
also contended that that the death of deceased was not a deliberate and
premeditated murder.
- The Court of Appeal held that the provocation though cumulative, was
considered ‘sudden’ as there was a final blow which triggered the accused so
much in murdering the deceased. Such cumulative provocation falls within the
ambit of provocation under Exception 1 of S 300 of the PC, and thus the charges
was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S 304 (b) of the
PC.
- As mentioned by sir, cumulative and accumulative is different.

2. Exceeding private defence

● From PC – Exception 2 – Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the
exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds
the power given to him by law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is
 exercising such right of defence, without premeditation and without any intention of
doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
● Private defence is a one of General Defences under Chapter IV which operates as a
total excuse if it is successfully raised by the accused. (S 96 to S 106 of the PC)
● Refer to S 100, S 102, S 103 to determine whether S 96 can be used. (S 96 – full
acquittal)
● If no, use the Exception 2 under S 300 of the PC. (Refer to S 99 (4) of the PC)

● Once an accused succeeded in pleading Exception 2, it will reduce the charge of

murder to be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under S
304 of the PC.
● In order to successfully raise this Exception, the are several conditions which must be
fulfilled:
i. The right of private defence must have existed. (S 97) (In other words if S 99
(1) – (3) applies, S 96 and Exception 2 will not be applicable)
ii. The right must have been exercised in good faith. (Not purposely done)
iii. The defender must not have been premeditating the death of the aggressor.
iv. The harm intended to be inflicted must not have exceeded that which was
necessary for the purpose of private defence.

Cases:

● Ommar Yacob v PP (Can rely on the Exception 2)

- During a quarrel, the accused was injured by the deceased at first. In countering
the attack, he stabbed the deceased to death. Later, it was found that the cause of
death were 2 stab wounds to the chest and there were also another 52 injuries
existed on the deceased’s body. The accused was charged for murder but he
claimed that he was only defending himself. However, the defence was rejected
by High Court on the ground that the 54 wounds and injuries caused were not
necessary.
- The court of appeal stated that it was wrong for the High Court to conclude that
there was an intention to cause death or such bodily injury sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death on the part of the accused. This was
because what the accused did was only for the purpose of defending or protecting
himself and were not premeditated. Therefore, his charge was reduced from
murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
● Wong Teck Choy v PP (Cannot rely on the Exception 2)
- The accused was attacked by the deceased at first. In countering the attack, the
appellant drew out his handgun and shot the deceased to death. It was found that
the deceased was passive and unarmed at the time of the attack when the appellant
shot on him. Later, the appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased and
 he went to appeal, raising the defence of exceeding private defence under the
Exception 2 of S 300 of PC.
- The Court mentioned that one of the cardinal principles governing the right of
private defence is that the exercise of that defence should not exceed what is
reasonably necessary to avert the assailant’s attack. Since the deceased was
unarmed, thus the usage of gun by accused in shooting him was considered as
unnecessary. Thus the defence failed and the appellant was convicted for murder.

3. Exceeding public power

● Exception 3 – Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public
servant, or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which
he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his
duty as such public servant, and without ill will towards the person whose death is
caused.
● Example: Police

● In order to successfully raise this Exception, there are several conditions which
must be fulfilled:
i. The death was caused whilst the accused was carrying out duties for the
advancement of public justice – ‘Advancement of public justice’ includes
apprehension of criminals or suspected to involve in crimes . (Must be for
the purpose of carrying out his duty)

Dukhi Singh v State of Allahabad

● In this case, the accused, who was a police officer shot a fireman to death as he
suspected that such fireman was an accomplice to a suspected thief who had just been
apprehended.
● The court held that the accused can rely on Exception 3 of 300 of the PC as he had
acted in good faith without malice against the deceased.

4. Sudden fight
● Exception 4 - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and
without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.
● “Sudden” – Not pre-planned and no interval between the quarrel and the fight.

● “Fight” – There will be blows on each side. And each subsequent blow becomes a
fresh provocation notwithstanding that only a slight blow that may have been
exchanged.
 ● “In the heat of passion" – the combatants of a sudden fight have experienced some
degree of loss of self-control.
● In order to successfully raise this Exception, the are several conditions which must be
fulfilled:
i. There was a sudden fight
ii. There was no premeditation
iii. The act was committed in the heat of passion
iv. The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
Teo Boon Ann v PP

● The Court in this case held that there was no sudden fight and that even if there was,
the appellant had taken undue advantage of the victim and had acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. If the accused takes undue advantage on the victim or acts in a cruel
manner, he is not able to rely on Exception 4 of S 300 of PC.
Chan Kwee Fong v PP

● There was a fight between the accused and deceased. The accused first slapped the
deceased’s girlfriend and later stabbed the deceased four times. However, when the
deceased managed to run away but was caught up again by the accused and being
stabbed on the back again. Eventually, the deceased died and the accused was charged
for murder under S 302 of the PC. One of the defences raised by accused was that
there was a sudden fight under Exception 4 of S 300 of PC.
● The court held that Exception 4 cannot apply because the accused had taken
advantage of the deceased and had acted in a cruel and unusual manner by
stabbing the deceased several times.
Hainie Hamid v PP

● In this case, the accused with others tried to stop a fight which the deceased had
involved in. However, it ended up the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and
it caused the death of the deceased.
● The court accepted the accused’s defence that there was a sudden fight and reduced
the charged from murder to culpable homicide.
Jeffrey Bin Tahil v PP

● In this case, there was an attack followed by a heated argument and grappling
between the accused and deceased. Even after the deceased fell down, the appellant
continued with his assault and tried to hit the deceased with a piece of pipe.
Eventually, it ended up the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife.
 ● The court held that in order to succeed in the defence of sudden fight, the appellant
had to show that the fight was not only sudden but also there was no premeditation. In
addition, the fatal act must be committed in the heat of passion and that the appellant
had not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. By this, the
court rejected the defence of sudden fight since there was premeditation on the part
of the accused.
Distinction between Exception 1 and 4 (not important)

● E1 is on more on grave and sudden provocation and does not required a fight while
E4 is more on fight no matter it is big or small fight.
● As far as provocation is concerned, physical contact is not required but exchange of
words. If there is an attack, it is considered as provocation. For fight, there must be
exchange of physical contact and exchange of blow. For example, if someone slap
you and you did not slap him back, it is provocation. However, it you slap back and
the victim counter back and so on, then there is a fight.
● As for fight, who started the fight is immaterial and it can be started either from the
victim or others. Under provocation, the provocation must be started form the victim.
● There is no need to prove gravity under E4 but for E1 need.

● The only similarity is the element of suddenness.

Teoh Seng Lian v PP

● In this case, it was found that the deceased’s husband had scolded and chased the
appellant, hitting him with a broom and then throwing a knife at him but missed. Both
of them went to get the knife but the appellant got it first and slashed the deceased.
The deceased later picked up a stone and hit his head but eventually she died. The
appellant was charged with murder and he appealed by claimed that there was a
sudden fight.
● Syed Agil Barakbah SCJ held that in Exception 4, notwithstanding that a blow has
been struck or provocation given in the origin of the dispute, it is the subsequent
conduct of the parties which puts them upon equal footing in respect of guilt that is
material. Then, it is left to the jury to consider whether the appellant had taken an
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. As for Exception 1, there
must be a grave and sudden provocation which is sufficient to cause the accused in
losing his self-control to kill the person who gave the provocation.
● In this case, since Exception 4 had been proved, the appellant’s appeal was granted
and was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the first
limb of S 304 of PC.
5. Consent
● Exception 5 – Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is
caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death, or takes the risk of
death with his own consent.
● The Exception applies when the deceased has been informed that the
consequences of any course of action he wishes to take, and has been informed
that it carries the risk of death, but nevertheless he takes the action or risk.
● Example: Deadly games, Stunt etc.

● In order to successfully raise this Exception, the are several conditions which must
be fulfilled:
i. The consent must be unequivocal, obtained not through threat, or
misconception.
ii. The victim must be above 18 years old.