PP v Sarjit Kaur a-p Najar Singh

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V SARJIT KAUR A/P NAJAR SINGH Presented By Morgan Phrasaddha Naidu Puspakaran (255843) Law of Evidence 1 (Group B) Dr Ani Munirah By Mohamad

1.0 BRIEF FACTS

Chronology of Events ● Accused (Wife) was charged under Section 302 of Penal Code for murder of her husband. ● Husband was found killed in the house whilst he was asleep, and he was in a sleeping position when he had been slashed 4 (four) times on his neck by the assailant. ● Prosecution relied solely on Circumstantial Evidence to establish that the accused was the person who had killed her husband.

Motive Infered ● Unfaithful wife ● Allegation of affair with someone else ● Relationship with husband not as it seemed to be ● Accused often beaten by husband which caused hatred ● Accused benefitted financially if husband died ● Accused agreed to have worn the blood-stained dress ● Accused insisted maid and children slept earlier than usual

2.0 FEELINGS

Personal Stand ● Circumstantial Evidence is evidences that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. ● Prosecution only established inference, but did not prove the point in question in this case. ● For example, the blood stains in her dress could have came from holding and grieving her dead husband in a helpless situation. ● Prosecution has a duty to establish a proper Standard of Proof in a responsible manner.

Prosecutor’s Duty ● Prosecutor had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had murdered her husband to form a proper Standard of Proof. ● Moreover, Prosecutor also does not prove the point in question which is the murder of the husband by the accused through the infered motives. ● Prosecutor should ensure that there is a greater chance (above 50%) that Circumstantial Evidence infering facts is true. ● Failure to do so made the Circumstantial Evidence to be not clear and convincing.

Satisfaction of Court ● The Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that accused had indeed committed the murder. ● However, due to failure of Prosecutor to infer motive from facts in a proper manner, the accused was acquitted and discharged. ● This is due to the Circumstantial Evidence provided by the Prosecution being not strong enough. ● Too many doubts had arisen in the Prosecution's case where the inference of motives were rebutted with an example where the deceased and accused had gone together for holidays and he had paid a huge deposit for a car for his wife.

3.0 EVALUATION

Reference to Section 60 of Evidence Act 1950 ● According to this legal provision, weightage provided for Circumstantial Evidence in Courts is very low. ● However, if the Circumstantial Evidence is accumulated it could build a strong case. ● For example, in Sunny Ang v PP, the accused was proclaimed guilty of murdering girlfriend due to accumulation of Circumstantial Evidences such as accused allowing to dive in dangerous waters and accused making a formal claim to her insurance company less than 24 hours of her disappearance.

Case of Hanif Basree ● Circumstantial ● Accused was the last Evidence was not person with her and strong enough. last to have sexual intercourse with her. ● No sign of break, so killer was someone ● DNA on the towel was known to her. proof that accused choked the deceased. ● Contended had intimate relationship with her. ● Too many doubts in Prosecution’s case.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Final Words ● I wholly agree with the decision made in PP v Sarjit Kaur A/P Najar Singh. ● A relevant decision as Prosecutor only established inferences from Circumstantial Evidence which did not prove the point in question. ● Moreover, there was too many doubts in the Prosecutor’s case.

Way Forward ● Combine Circumstantial Evidence with Corpus Delicti. ● Has 2 components, death as a result and criminal agency of another as means. ● Should be applied with Circumstantial Evidence to eliminate the concept that as long as the least amount of doubt exists, criminal agency cannot arise. ● No matter how Circumstantial Evidence is, it amounts to nothing unless Corpus Delicti established. ● Why Corpus Delicti together with Circumstantial Evidence? ● Because it eliminates the probability caused by Circumstantial Evidence. ● Moreover, it applies the concept that ‘A citizen should not be deprived of his liberty or life due to a mere possibility’.