3 TYPES OF HOMICIDE

1. Murder
2. Culpable homicide
3. Causing death by negligence
 MURDER 
• Defined in S300 but punishable under S302
• Under S300, the prosecution is required to prove: 
Death of victim which was caused by the acts of the accused [AR] 
The acts by which the death was caused falls under the ambit of limbs (a)
until (d) [MR]
• However, if the accused manage to plead any of the exceptions
provided under S300, his charge will be reduced from murder
punishable under S302 to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under S304. 
 Actus Reus
• S300 of PC - Causing death 
• PP v Manimaran a/l Amas and Ors - It was held that the first
ingredients of murder must be proven, namely death of the
deceased. 
• Mohd Asmadi bin Yusof v PP - It was held that the first ingredients of
murder must be proven, namely, death of the deceased had taken
place. 
 Causation
• Apply test 
But-for test
Substantial test
• PP v Manimaram a/l Amas and Ors - the prosecution is required to
prove the second ingredients of murder, namely it was caused by the
acts of the accused. 
• Mohd Asmadi bin Yusof v PP - the prosecution had to prove the
second ingredients of murder, namely the death had been caused by
or in consequence of the act of the accused. 
 Mens Rea
• PP v Manimaram a/l Amas & Ors - the court held that the prosecution is required to
prove the last ingredients of murder. The last element is mens rea, the act by which the
death was caused falls under the ambit of limbs (a) till (d). 
• Mohd Asmadi bin Yusof v PP - when the accused used a brick to hit the vital part of the
victim, his head, there is a strong probability that it will cause death, or it is likely to
cause death. Such act was done with the intention either of causing death or of causing
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused his death.
Therefore, his mens rea in committing murder falls under limb (b). 
• Hashim bin Mat Isa v PP - the court held that it is necessary to prove the mens rea as
required under S300 of PC.  
• Tham Kai Yau v PP - intention is the highest degree of mens rea and it is a matter of
inference that can be inferred from surrounding circumstances. 
• The limbs under (a), (b) and (c) are generally classified as mens rea of intention whereas
limb (d) indicates knowledge. 
 Intention to cause death: clause (a) s 300 
• Intention is a matter of fact and can be inferred from the behaviour and action of the
accused. The court can consider the type of weapon used, in which part of the body a
victim is hurt, the number of blows delivered, how much force is used by an offender,
etc. 
• Mohd Yazid bin Hashim v PP - Intention can be inferred where the killing is committed
in a particularly gruesome, violent and savage manner, or when extensive wounds are
found on the body of the victim. 
• Ghazali Bin Mat Ghani v PP -  Deliberate use of a dangerous weapon leads to an
irresistible inference that their intention is to cause death.
• Tan Buck Tee v PP - the defendant had caused five wounds, and the wounds penetrated
the heart and liver of the victim causing the victim to die. The prosecution could show
the requisite mens rea of intention as in S300 (a) in this case as the five wounds at vital
organ had shown intention to bring to an end to the victim. 
• Loo Ting Meng v PP - Slashing the deceased's throat with a cleaver would qualify as an
intentional act by the appellant to desire the deceased's death under S300(a) of PC. 
Intention to cause bodily injury and the offender knows that due to
his act (situation or personal knowledge) that the victim will die if
he does so: clause (b) s 300 

• Limb (b) requires the prosecution to prove that the death has been
caused to the victim by intentionally inflicting injuries which has a
likelihood of death. The term “knows” indicates that the accused was
certain that the injuries he intentionally inflicted on the victim would
most likely resulted to death. The certainty derives from the accused
knowledge of the victim’s situation or health condition. 
• Mohd Naki bin Mohd Yusuf v PP - the accused had been charged with
murder when there was evidence that shown that the accused had hit
the victim’s head, vital part of the body, using an iron rod which had
cause the victim to die. The prosecution had relied on such evidence
along with the motive of the accused to kill the deceased due to
suspicion that the deceased had extra marital relationship. The court
held the accused to be liable under S.300 (b). 
 Intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death: clause (c) s 300 
• Limb (c) requires that an injury intentionally inflicted by the accused must be objectively sufficient in the
ordinary cause of nature to cause death. It depends on the type of weapon used or which part of the body is
injured. The accused is said to have the mens rea when he has the intention to cause bodily injury and the
bodily injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 
• Mohd Isa bin Mohd Nor v Pendakwa Raya - the appellant hurriedly left the deceased’s office carrying a
lady’s handbag and a Rambo knife. The court held that he had the intention of causing bodily injury sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death under S300(c) of PC. The intention to kill, when the appellant
inflicted those injuries, was inferred by looking at the nature of the wound. Thus, the appeal was dismissed
and the appellant was convicted murder. 
• PP v Visuvanathan - the cause of the death was due to stab wound into the heart.  The court held that a two
centimetre cut to the anterior of the heart was intended and was not accidental or unintentional. The bodily
injury was also sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death under S 300 (c) of PC. There was a
clear intention of murder of the accused. 
• Abdul Razak Dalek v PP - the accused was charged with murdering his wife, the victim. There was no doubt
the accused intended to cause the deceased’s injuries and, having considered the type and gravity of the
fatal wound, there was also no doubt that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
and therefore satisfied the element of intention in S300(c). 
 Knowing that his act is likely to cause death: clause (d) s
300 
• Limb (d) is applicable to an act which is so imminently dangerous without the intention of causing
specific bodily injury to a person. The distinction between (d) with (a) to (c) is that in the latter there
is intention to cause death or to cause bodily injury, whereas in (d) there is no such intention. The
accused is said to have mens rea when he has the knowledge that such act is so imminently
dangerous that it is so highly probable to cause death. Under limb (d) element of knowledge must be
proven where the accused must have known that when he did an act it was so imminently
dangerous that it would in all probability cause death or that the bodily injury he inflicted was likely
to cause death.
• William Tan Cheng Eng v PP - the court held that it is not sufficient to amount to murder under S300
for an act to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Such an act
becomes murder only if death results and the person who commits the act knew when committing
the act, that it was so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death or such
bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
• PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee @ Omar Iskandar Lee bin Abdullah - The learned trial judge correctly
observed that 'intention' is not a necessary element in S300(d) of PC and all that is required to be
proved is 'knowledge' that the act is likely to cause death. The court held that there was knowledge
as the accused was aware that he was close with the victim when he shot and he was aware that he
shot the victim. Hence, the accused is liable under S300(d) of PC. 
 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 
• Conditions to invoke Exceptions 1 – 5 of S300 is to prove actus reus and mens rea
under S300 prior to rely on exceptions in S300 of PC. 
• Effect of successful in raising Exception 1 – 5 of S 300 is that the punishment will
be mitigated from S 302 to S 304.
• Looi Wooi Saik v PP - if the case comes within any of these then what would
otherwise have been murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
These are generally called “special exceptions" because they are special to the
offence of murder. 
• There are 5 Exceptions under s.300: 
1. Grave and sudden provocation 
2. Exceeding private defence 
3. Exceeding public power 
4. Sudden fight 
5. Consent
 Exception 1: Grave and Sudden Provocation 
• Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and
sudden provocation causes death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by accident. 
1st: Provocation must come 2nd: Provocation must be 3rd: Provocation must be 4th: Proportionality of
from the victim and cause the grave sudden  retaliation
accused to lose his self-control

Chong Teng v PP The test for the provocation Nanavati v State of AG for Ceylon v Don John
The defence failed as the is the reasonable men test.  Maharashtra Perera
accused was the one who The test is objective and
provoked first. 
Lorensus Tukan v PP  Che Omar bin Mohd Akhir v must be decided by
Public Prosecutor v Lim Eng Kiat  The court will ask whether a Public Prosecutor comparing the nature of
The test to be applied was the reasonable man, belonging There was no such thing as provocation and the act of
self-control ‘of the ordinary man to the same standard gradual and accumulated retaliation
of the Chinese community in situation as the accused provocation that amounted
Brunei from which the accused would be so provoked as to to grave and sudden
comes’. It was held that an lose his self-control? If the provocation.  
ordinary person of the accused’s answer is yes, then the
race, class and background
would have been provoked in provocation is grave.  PP v Abdul Razak Dalek
similar circumstances.  It must be unexpected and to
have occurred within a short
period of time before the
killing that is instantaneous
 Exception 2: Exceed Right of Private Defence 
• This Exception provides a partial defence to an accused who had exceeded his right of private defence. Private defence
is one of General Defences under Chapter IV which operates as a total excuse if it is successfully raised by the accused.
The defence is provided under S 96 to S 106. When an accused has exercised his right to private defence beyond its
limits conferred under S 99 and caused the death of the deceased, he will no longer be qualified to plead the defence
under Chapter IV. Once an accused succeeded in pleading Exception 2, it will reduce the charge of murder to be one of
culpable homicide not amounting murder punishable under S304.
• Conditions:
• the right of private defence must have existed.
• the right must have been exercised in good faith
• the defender must not have been premeditating the death of the aggressor.
• the death was caused without any intention of doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose
of private defence. 

• Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v State of Maharashtra - The court held that there was no right of private defence, either of
person or property, had ever accrued to the appellant as the deceased was unarmed. 
• Ommar Yacob v PP  - it was held that he then cannot relied on S96 and S97 but can rely on Exception 2 in S300. 
• Teoh Seng Lian v PP  - the accused was convicted with murder caused by a misunderstanding with the deceased’s
husband relating to intend to sell a boat. It was held that the attacker exercised the act in good faith under
the circumstances of exception 2 amounts only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 
 Exception 3: Public Servant Exceeding Powers  
• This Exception provides a partial defence to a public servant who had acted in the advancement of public
justice or to those who had assisted the public servant. Whenever these parties exceeded the powers
accorded by law and caused the death of the deceased, they can rely on this Exception to reduce their
charge to a lesser charge. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender kills when he is a public servant to
advance public justice or those who had assisted the public servant exceeded the powers accorded by law
and caused the death of the deceased. 
• Conditions to raise the Exception: 
1. The accused is a public servant and the death was caused whilst the accused was carrying out duties for
the advancement of public justice
2. He exceeds the power given by law and had caused death of the victim
3. The accused had acted in good faith without malice against the deceased. Refer to S 52
• Dukhi Singh v State of Allahabad - a suspected thief, who had been arrested, escaped from a running train.
A constable pursued him to effect his arrest and when he was not in a position to apprehend him, he fired at
him. In the process, he hit the fireman whom he had suspected to be an accomplice to the suspected thief.
Court held that exception 3 can be relied. The constable exceeded the powers given to him by law because
he shot even though just on mere suspicion, and caused the death of the fireman by doing an act which, in
good faith, he believed to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of his duty. 
 Exception 4: Sudden Fight 
• This exception applies to an accused who had killed the deceased in a sudden fight. The word “sudden” is similar to Exception 1.
It is not pre-planned and no interval between the quarrel and the fight. If the two parties had exchange of words, and retreat but
later come together and have a fight does not equal to sudden because the parties retreated. The word “fight” indicates that
there must be blows on each side. “In the heat of passion" refers to the combatants of a sudden fight which have experienced
some degree of loss of self-control. 
1st: There must be a sudden 2nd: There was no 3rd: The act was committed in 4th: The assailant had not taken
fight premeditation  the heat of passion any undue advantage or acted in
a cruel manner.

Teoh Seng Lian v PP Mohamed Kunjo v PP Chan Kwee Fong v PP  Dharman v State of Punjab
The victim threw the knife to the Premeditation involves a pre- It was held that the accused had Exception 4 applies to a
accused, the accused then planning which is furnished by taken undue advantage and had situation where the combatants
threw back the knife and hit the prior grudges or previous acted in cruel and unusual were both armed with sharp-
victim. It is immaterial which threat.  manner ‘in the heat of passion’.  edged weapons and one of
party started the provocation or them had killed the other with
initiated the first assault.  PP v Awang Riduan bin Awang his weapon. 
Bol
Asogan Ramesh s/o No sudden fight as there was Teo Boon Ann v PP
Ramachandren v PP  element of design or planning.  Undue advantage - the fight
The defence failed because the started on an equal footing
defence could not prove between the combatants. 
“sudden fight”.  
PP v Seow Khoon Kwee
Exception 4 was applicable. 
 Exception 5: Consent  
• The exception applies when a person 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 the risk.  
• Eg deadly games, stunts. 
• Conditions to raise the exception: 
1. The consent must be a voluntary and genuine consent and not based on a misconception
of fact. It must be unequivocal and not merely an expression of a willingness 
2. The victim must be above 18 years old
• Poonai Fattemah - a snake charmer told his audience that if they were bitten, he had necessary
antidote. The deceased allowed himself to be bitten and subsequently died. Exception 5 did not
apply because the victim's consent was based on a misconception. 
• Dasrath Paswan - a student who had failed his examination for three successive years, decided
in depression to end his 19-years old wife of his plans. In distraught, she asked him to kill her
first and then kill himself. He killed her but was arrested before he could kill himself. The court
held that the exception was satisfied and rejected the tenuous submission of the prosecution
that the consent was obtained by the accused pressurizing the deceased with years of future
widowhood. 
 3 TYPES OF HOMICIDE
1. Murder
2. Culpable homicide
3. Causing death by negligence
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE
• Defined in S299 but punishable under S304 
• All cases fall under S300 must necessarily fall within S299 but not all cases falling within S299 will
fall under S300. 
• Under S299 of PC, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
• Based on the case of Tham Kai Yau & Ors v PP and Ramaiah v PP, S299 is a substantive offence
section. If the Exceptions to S300 do not apply, it would not mean that the facts can never be
construed as coming within the ambit of S299 and S304. The facts may in law fall within the
second and third limb of S299 which in themselves deal with the substantive offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. 
• Elements
1.  The death of a person which was caused by the act of accused [AR]
2.  The accused either: [MR]
a) Intended such act to cause death or cause such bodily injury that was likely to cause
death; OR 
b) Knew that such act would be likely to cause death 
 Actus Reus
• S299 of PC - Causing death 
• PP v Megat Shahrizat bin Megat Shahrur - the respondent hit and slapped the deceased. The
respondent however proceeded to put a cushion over the deceased and sat on it. The respondent
was stopped but he replied there was no reason for worry as the deceased was sturdy. The
deceased died later. The post-mortem report indicated the cause of death as ruptured liver and
pancreas and blunt trauma. The court held that the death of the deceased is caused by the act of
the respondent, hence, there is actus reus as the death of the deceased clearly attracted S299 of
PC. 
• Tham Kai Yau v PP - the appellants attacked the deceased with choppers, inflicting multiple deep
wounds and two serious head wounds. The accused was charged under S299 for causing the
death of the deceased. The principle is that there must be the death of the victim.
 Causation
• Apply test 
ü But-for test
ü Substantial test
 Mens Rea
• There are three limbs of mens rea provided under S299 of PC, the prosecutor is required to prove
either one of them, which is the intention of causing death, or the intention of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death. 
• Tham Kai Yau v PP - the appellants and one other made an attack with choppers and saw on the
deceased. The court held that the appellants attacked the deceased and did intend to cause
bodily harm as is likely to cause death to the deceased which falls under limb b of S299 of PC.
[limb b]
• Cheong Kam Kuen v PP - the evidence of the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased was
sufficient to prove an intention on the part of the appellant to cause bodily injury as is likely to
cause death to the deceased. Based on the evidence of the pathologist, the court held that the
accused had the mens rea under S299. [limb b]
• Selvaraj Subramaniam v PP - the accused, a police inspector was charged with culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, punishable under S304(b). The judge held that the accused knew that
his act was likely to cause death. [limb c]
 3 TYPES OF HOMICIDE
1. Murder
2. Culpable homicide
3. Causing death by negligence
 CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE
• S 304A - Causing death by negligence: 
Whoever causes the death of any person, by doing any rash or
negligence act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with
fine or with both. 

Elements: 
The accused had caused the death of the deceased
The death caused by the accused is due to rash or negligent act
 Actus Reus
• S304A of PC - Causing death 
• PP v Moo He Hong - the court held that, first and foremost, it must be proven
that death of a person has been caused. 
• PP v Chua Seng Hoo & Ors - seven family members were charged under S304A of
the Penal Code and under S 31(1)(a) Child Act 2001 for causing the death of a 3-
year-old child. 
• Empress v Idu Beg - the accused is in a quarrel with his wife, he was so angry and
struck her one or more blows on the left side with a heavy stick, which ruptured
her spleen. His wife died within an hour. The court held that the accused is liable
under S304A for causing the death of his wife. 
 Causation
• Apply test 
ü But-for test
ü Substantial test
 Mens Rea
• The mens rea provided under S304A of PC is negligence or rashness. 
• Adnan bin Khamis v PP - the court laid down the test to be applied for determining the guilt or innocence of
an accused person charged with rash or negligent conduct is to consider whether or not a reasonable man in
the same circumstances would have been aware of the likelihood of damage or injury to others resulting
from such conduct, and taken adequate and proper precautions to avoid causing such damage or injury. 
• PP v Mahfar bin Sairan - the accused had caused the death of the deceased by driving his car into her. The
deceased went on to hold on to the right wing mirror when the accused had completed reversing the car
out. The accused contended that he did not know how his wife came to be injured and claimed that he was
not aware that she had chased after his car and grabbed the right wing mirror of his car. The issue was
whether he had committed an offence of causing death by a rash or negligent act under S304A. The court
found that the accused’s culpability fell under S304A. From the time the deceased had held on to the mirror,
the accused must be taken to have assumed the responsibility not to do anything rash or negligent that may
cause any injury to the deceased. He was expected under the circumstances to have taken proper
precautions to avoid causing the injuries to the deceased which he had failed to do. He was therefore rash or
negligent or both. S304A does not prescribe two distinct offences but merely provides for a single offence of
causing death by a conduct which can be described as rash or negligent but falling short of culpable
homicide. 
 Rashness vs Negligence
Rashness Negligence
Knowingly taking on reasonable risk  Unintentionally taking unreasonable risk
H drove the car in a dangerous manner. He realised this H drove the car in a manner that was objectively
generated some risks, but did not intend to hurt anyone, dangerous, having regard to all the circumstances.
and was not aware that death was likely to result. H’s However, it is not proved that he realised his driving was
state of mind falls short of what would be required for dangerous. H can be found guilty of causing death by
culpable homicide. However, it is likely to be covered by negligence under s 304A 
‘rashness’ under s304A 
Reg. v Nidamarti Nagabhushanam - culpable rashness is Reg. v Nidamarti Nagabhushanam - culpable negligence
acting with the consciousness that mischievous and is acting without the consciousness that the illegal or
illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which
they will not and often with the belief that the actor has show that the actor has not exercised the caution
taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening.  incumbent upon him, and that, if he had, he would have
Empress v Idu Beg AIR - criminal rashness is hazarding a had the consciousness. 
dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, Empress v Idu Beg - criminal negligence is the gross and
and that it may cause injury, but without intention to culpable neglect of failure to exercise that reasonable
cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be and proper care and precaution to guard against injury
caused.  either to the public generally or to an individual in
Lim Hong Eng v PP - the Singapore High Court held that particular, which having regard to all the circumstances
rashness implies a disregard to the possibility of injury or out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative
death.  duty of the accused person to have adopted. 
THE END

This Photo by Unknown author is licensed under CC BY-SA.