Sample answer for question 1

The issue in this case is whether Mat Shah is liable for an offence of murder
under by causing death to his wife?

Under the law, murder is covered by section 300 of the Act, which states that
culpable homicide is murder
(a) if death is caused with the intention of causing death
(b) with the intention of causing bodily injury as the offenders knows to be
likely to caused death
(c) with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury is sufficient
in the ordinary cause of natute to caused death
(d) committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous which in all
probability caused death

In order to establish the offence, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove

actus reus and mens rea of offence of murder. The actus reus for the offence of
murder are
1) The victim is dead.
In the given fact, it is clear that the victim / Mat Shah’s wife is dead since he
was arrested for shooting her.
2) The victim died as a result of injuries sustained by him/her. In order to
establish this element, it must be solicited from the evidence of medical
pathologist who recorded his findings and prepared a post mortem report
marked. The medical pathologist must be someone has the expertise and
experience in the field. Usually, the medical pathologist will testified in court of
what types of injuries suffered by the victim.
Mat Shah’s wife also dies as a result of the injuries sustained by her due to the
shot which penetrated her heart. Heart is a vital part of human organ and any
injuries penetrated at that part usually will result to death of the victim. As
been explained above, in normal case, the medical expertise will testify in court
to corroborate the evidence that the victim died due to the injuries that has
been inflicted by the accused person.
3) The injuries of the victim were caused by or the results of the acts of
accused person.
The prosecution will rely on the evidence of the medical expert or witness if any
and that above statement made by the accused can also be relied upon. The
medical expert will confirm that the deceased death was caused by the injuries
sustained as a result of the accused person. They will also identify of the
weapon used i.e. in this case Mat Shah used a pistol.

The prosecution will further prove his case by establishing the mens rea of the
accused person when committing the offence of murder. It is either mens rea
which stated in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) to section 300 of the Act or combination
thereof.

How infer intention on the part of the accused in this case? Intention can be
inferred by the fact of the case. Besides, other factors such as the nature of
injuries, place of injuries, number of injuries inflicted, method of infliction and
the use of and nature of weapons can also be accumulated to determine the
intention of the accused.

From the given fact, it is obvious that Mat Shah has the intention to kill his
wife. Thus, clause (a) is the appropriate provision to proof mens rea of the
accused person. Illustration (a) to section 300 of the Act, stated that “A
shoots Z with the intention of killing him, Z dies in consequence. A commits
murder”.

In the case of Tan Buck Tee v Public Prosecutor, the court had viewed the
nature of injuries sustained by a victim as an indicator of intention to kill,
thus:
“There was the body with five appalling wounds on it, wounds
penetrating to the heart and liver, which must have been caused by violent
blows with a heavy sharp instrument like an axe. In the absence of anything
else, whoever inflicted those blows must have intended to kill the person on
whom they were inflicted.”

In the case of Tham Kai Yau & Ors v Public Prosecutor, where the judge said
that
“It cannot be disputed that intention is a matter of inference. The deliberate
use by some men of dangerous weapons at another leads to the irresistible
inference that their intention is to cause death. This inference should therefore
make it a simple matter to come to a decision as to intention, in any case, such
as the present, where the weapons used by the appellants were deadly
weapons and where the person killed was struck more than one blow.”

In another case of Public Prosecutor v Sainal Abidin Mading, in order to

ascertain the state of mind of the accused, the court had this to say:
“... Meanwhile, as regards intention it is something which is incapable of
direct proof. It is also not something that can be seen. It is the state of the
mind. Hence, to ascertain it the surrounding circumstances have to be
considered including the nature of wounds inflicted, the number of wounds,
the part of the victim's body which sustained the injuries and the nature of the
weapon's used.”

As mentioned above, intention is a matter of inference and court has given fews
direction in determining the intention of the accused. Therefore, Mat Shah
indeed has the intention to murder his wife based on the weapon used that is a
pistol. Pistol is considered as dangerous and lethal weapon which can result
instant death if shot at vital part of human body.

The intention can also be deduced based on the place of the injuries which he
has inflicted on his wife i.e. he shot her straight through her heart. Heart is
considered as a vital part of human body and any sort of injury sustained at
that part is highly probably to cause death. It is presumable that he shots her
at close distant in which she has no way to escape the attack since her
confession has triggered the loss of control on Mat Shah’s part.

Mat Shah’s intention to kill his wife can also be inferred based on the
statement that he made, when he said he has no regret for shooting her wife.
This is to indicate that he wants her to die and he believes that she does not
deserve to live anymore due to the fact that she had betrayed him despite him
being loyal to their marriage.

Based on the quoted cases and above explaination, it is clear that Mat Shah
has committed an offence of murder under section 300 (a) of the Act. He will be
subjected to death penalty under section 302 of the Act for the conviction of
the said offence since all the actus reus and mens rea of offence of murder has
been successfully established.