Intention to cause death – Sec.

300(a)

Tan Hoi Hung: ‘Intention’ indicates that a man is consciously shaping his conduct to execute his
conduct or an event.

Intention to commit murder is usually inferred from the facts of the case, which takes into
consideration the nature, place, number of injuries inflicted, method of infliction and the
weapon employed. 

Mohd Asmadi Yusof: Where the accused struck the deceased’s head with bricks, the court took
into consideration the violent nature of the assault and the long standing feud between the
individuals, which clearly showed the accused’s intention to cause death.

The intention must be to cause the death of a person and need not be to cause the death of a
particular person. 

Ismail bin Hussin: Where the accused saw a figure whom he thought was a terrorist and fired at
the man, the court held that the act amounted to murder as the intention to cause death was
still formed.

Intention to cause bodily injury which offender knows is likely to cause death – Sec. 300(b)

The accused could reasonably know that his act will likely cause death in an ordinary course of
event, to the deceased.
If it can be proven that the accused did not have such knowledge/know of the likely
consequence, the offence will be reduced to one of culpable homicide.

Intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Sec. 300(c)

In determining whether the accused had the intention to inflict the injury, it is not necessary
that the accused intended to cause the detailed injuries. 

Tan Joo Cheng: Where the accused had intention to thrust the knife in the region of the
deceased’s neck, the court held that he had the necessary intention to cause a wound in the
region of the neck, and such an injury was inflicted. 


Whether the injury was sufficient to cause death must be inferred from the facts about the
nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention. 

Knows it is imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death – Sec. 300(d)

The accused must know that his act was so imminently dangerous and committed in utter
disregard that death would result from such act. 


Emperor v Dhirajia: The accused, while in panic and trying to escape her husband, jumped
down a well with her baby in her arms. The baby died and the accused was convicted of
murder. Held: On appeal, it was found that the accused’s fear and panic was enough of an
excuse to conclude that she did not know that her act would in all probability cause the baby’s
death. 


An offence of culpable homicide will not tantamount to murder, if the accused can bring his act
under any five exceptions to Section 300.

Exception 1– Provocation
The offender is deprived of self-control when he is attacked by sudden and grove provocation.
Then he causes the death to the person who provoked or causes death to any other person by
mistake.

However it is subjected to 3 things;

1. The offender did not provoke the provocation by himself voluntarily.

Chong Teng v PP: The accused went to the market to fight with the deceased. He was
angry that he enticed the accused’s wife. The court held, you should not go to the
provocation, the provocation must come to you.

2. The provocation done by the deceased must not be the lawful exercise of private
defence.
Mohd Sulaiman v PP: The accused broke into a coffee show. The deceased threw hot
water to exercise his private defence. The accused hit the deceased and caused his
death.

3. The provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of powers.
Subject to non-application of proviso 300

1. Proportionality of retaliation
Should not be disproportionate.
N.Govindasamy: The deceased provoked the offender’s religion and provoked his
daughter’s honour. It was disproportionate when he inflicted 7 fatal wounds on head of
the deceased.

2. Application of reasonable man test.

The reasonable man is he who has the habits, manners and feelings of the class of
community to which the accused belongs.

Where the reasonable man test is applied;

i. Have lost his self-control
Che Omar Mohd Akhir: It is assessed by emotions and manner that would be
done by a community, and not the particular state of the accused.

ii. Grave and sudden

Abdul Razak Dalek: It was not grave and sudden as there was a cooling period.
After 3 months the accused stab his wife and slit the throat after the
provocation.

3. Cooling period
A cooling period will not satisfy the principal of immediate and loss the efficacy of
provocation.
Mohammad Yassin: The accused and deceased was in a fight and been prevented the
night before. The next morning the accused sharpened the handle of toothbrush and
stabbed the deceased in neck.

Grave and sudden

1. Provocation in the form of words per se does not constitute grave and sudden
provocation.
Kuan Ted Fatt: The defence of grave and sudden provocation was not successful even
though the words uttered by the deceased to the accused; ‘if I had raped your wife, so
 what! Abusive and insulting language whether it come in the form of an insult to the
accused or to his family, will not justify his action.

2. Straw that breaks the camel’s back

Long history of accumulated provocation behind the latest provocation, the act justifies
grave and sudden.
Mat Sawi b. Bahadin v PP: It constitutes a long history of unhappy marriage life, the
mother in law siding with her daughter. Eventually, overtime it aggravated the accused
and subsequently killing the wife.

Exception 2
Exceeding right of private defence.

There are 4 conditions:

i. the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter
ii. there must be present some imminent danger to life or bodily harm, either if it is real or
apparent in an honest belief.
iii. there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape
iv. there must be a necessity for taking life

2 circumstances may apply for the second exception:

i. the offender caused death of an offence which do not fall under Sec 100 and Sec 103 of
Penal Code.
ii. the offender exercised his right of private defence when reasonable apprehension of
danger had ceased.
Soosay v PP: It was quarrel between the accused and his friend with deceased who wanted to
retrieve a gold chain. The deceased withdrew a knife and threatened the accused’s friend. The
knife fell and the accused grabbed it to stab the deceased several times. The right to private
defence ceased at the moment the knife was dislodged from the deceased.

Exception 3
Public servant exceeding powers.

4 conditions

i. the offender must be public servant or a person aiding a public servant.

 ii. he exceeded the powers given by law and had caused death
iii. without ill will towards the person he killed
iv. he acted in good faith believing it was necessary and lawful

Dukhi Singh v State of Allahabad: A thief that has been arrested, escaped from a running train.
The constable pursued him and tried to fire the thief. However, it hit the fireman of the engine
and killed him. The constable exceeds the powers given to him by law and he acted in good
faith believing to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of his duty.

Exception 4
Sudden fight.

3 conditions must be fulfilled

1. There must be sudden fight

A sudden quarrel can never be sudden fight until there is use or attempt of violence by
any party.
Atma Singh: It is not necessary that weapons should be used in the fight. Blows should
be exchanged. An affray can be a fight

2. There must be absence of premeditation

Premeditation is not a sudden killing where it is done in impulse. It involves preplanning.
Ong Kin Hong: The appellant brought on iron rod as a weapon of murder to kill
deceased and then threw it into the river.

3. There was no undue advantage taken or any cruel or unusual manner.

Where the accused resorts to use of weapons against an unarmed person, he is unlikely
to be allowed the defence of sudden fight.
Mohd Sulaiman: The accused stabbed death an elderly man who carried no weapon
and prevent the accused from attempting theft.

Exception 5
Consent

Consent must be voluntary and genuine. It’s not on a misconception of fact. It must be
unequivocal and not merely a willingness to die.
Desrath Paswan: Where a depressed man, who informed his wife of his suicidal plans, was
asked by his wife to kill her first before killing himself. He then killed her, but was arrested
before suicide. Held: His act of killing her fall under the exception.