COURSE OUTLINE

Kulliyyah         Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws

Department        Public Law

Programme         LL.B

Course Title      Criminal Law II

Course Code       LAW 2311

Status            Core

Level             2

Credit Hours      3

Contact Hours     2 lectures 1 tutorial

Pre-requisites    None
(if any)

Co-requisites     None
(if any)

Instructional     Lectures and Tutorials

Assessment            LO                   METHOD               PERCENTAGE
State weightage                                                     (%)
of each type of    1-5      Test 1 – essay question                 15%
                   1, 2,    Test II – problematic question         15%
                   3, 5
                   1–5      Part in Tutorial (problem solving      10%
                   1–5      Final Examination                      60%

                             Total                                          100%
Instructor(s)       Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohammad Akram
                    Dr. Mohd. Baharudin Harun (Co-ordinator)
                    Dr. Mahanoon Yusoff
                    Mdm. Mazlena M. Hussain

Semester            Semester I and II

Course Synopsis     The course will deal with the general principles of criminal liability, the
                    characteristic features of the Malaysian Penal Code and its interpretation.
                    A comparative approach of the law of crimes in Malaysia, Singapore,
                    India, Pakistan and England will be adopted. Topics would include
                    inchoate offences, non-fatal and fatal offences against person and offences
                    against property.

Course              The objectives of the course are:
Objectives          (1) To enable students to understand and be familiar with the types of
                        offences available in the Penal Code.
                    (2) To enable students to understand and identify the various elements
                        (actus reus and mens rea) that must be fulfilled and proven beyond
                        reasonable doubt, in order to establish the crime.
                    (3) To enable students to understand and appreciate how the courts have
                        interpreted these provisions.

Learning            At the end of the course, students should be able:
Outcomes            (1) To identify the different offences that can be found in the Penal Code
                         and the various elements to be fulfilled before these offences can be
                         said to have been committed.
                    (2) To recognize and identify these offences in a given situation.
                    (3) To apply the legal principles established in the cases to the given
                    (4) To explain how the courts interpret provisions in the Penal Code.
                    (5) To keep abreast with the development and changes in laws as well as
                         matters that has impact on law.

                                        Content Outlines

  Weeks                      Topics                               Task/Reading

   1&2          Attempt & Impossible Attempt      Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, Criminal Law
                                                  in Singapore and Malaysia, Malayan
                Attempt is the third stage in the Law Journal, Kuala Lumpur, 1989, pp

    commission of an offence after          249 – 288.
    intention and preparation. Except       Molly Cheang, Criminal Law of
    in a few situations, these two stages   Malaysia and Singapore, Professional
    do not give rise to any criminal        (Law) Books Publishers, 1990, pp 549 –
    liability.   As such it becomes         595.
    important to distinguish between
    preparation and attempt. There are      Cases:
    basically three ways how the Penal      Arjan Singh v. PP [1949] MLJ 73
    Code deals with attempt, i.e attempt    Ismail v. PP (1963) MLJ 208
    found in the same provision as the      Thiangiah v. PP [1977] 1 MLJ 79
    principal offence, specific provision   Tan Beng Chye v. PP (1966) 1 MLJ173
    on attempt and the residuary or         Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961)
    general provision on attempt.           AIR SC 1782
                                            In re Muniaratnam Reddi AIR (1955)
    The important issues relating to        AND. 118
    attempt are whether there can be        Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
    liability for attempting something      (1961)SC 1698
    which      is   impossible,   either    PP v. Kee Ah Bah [1979] 1 MLJ26
    physically, legally or through          Munah Ali v. PP [1958] MLJ 159
    ineptitude,       and       whether     Asgaralli v.Emperor AIR (1933) Cal.
    abandonment of an attempt can be        893
    accepted as a defence?        These     PP v. Zainal Abiding [1987] 2 MLJ 741
    issues will be resolved by looking      Ooi Bee Kee v. PP unrep.
    at the statutory provisions and the     R v. Francis Cassidy (1867) 4 Bom.
    decided cases.                          HCR 17
                                            Queen Empress v. Niddha (1891) XIV
                                            All. 38
                                            Mohan Rathor v. State of Madhya
                                            Pradesh (1986) Cri LJ 1280
                                            Awadesh Mahto v. State of Bihar (1979)
                                            Cri LJ 1275
                                            Pang Neng Tiong v. PP [1988] 1 MLJ

3   Abetment         &         Criminal Molly Cheang, pp 234 – 244
    Conspiracy                            Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, pp 305 – 323
                                          Koh & Myint Soe, pp 526 – 544
    Abetment      is    a   mode       of
    participation. Many crimes would Cases:
    not have been committed but for the Hj Abdul Ghani Ishak [1981] 2 MLJ 230
    encouragement and support from Datuk Hj.Harun Idris (1977) 2 MLJ
    others. Such encouragement can 155
    either be in the form of instigation, Isaac Paul Ratnam v. Law Society [1976]
    conspiracy or intentional aid. The 1 MLJ 195
    person who instigates, conspires or Baby John v. State of Travancore Cochin
    aids commits the offence of (1953) AIR 251

      abetment. An abettor is liable even       NMMY Momin (1971) Cri LJ 793
      though the offence abetted is not         R v. Chew Chong Jin (1956) 22 MLJ
      committed. His liability is not           185
      dependent on the liability of the         PP v. Tee Tean Siong (1963) 29 MLJ
      person abetted. However, this is          201
      only true in so far as the first two      Chuan Keat Chan v. PP [1972] 2 MLJ
      types of abetment. For abetment by        57
      aiding, the liability of the abettor is   Latif Khan (1895) 20 Bom. 394
      dependent on the liability of the         Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam
      person abetted.                           AIR (1959) SC 673

 4    Assault, Criminal Force, Hurt & Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, pp 499 – 523
      Grievous Hurt
      A force becomes a crime when (a) Tuberville v. Savage (1660) 1 Mod Rep.
      it is used without consent and in 3
      order to commit an offence, or (b) it Jashanmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand
      is intentionally used to cause injury, Sarupanand AIR (1944) Sind 19
      fear or annoyance to another to Ramla v. State of Rajasthan (1963) 1 Cri
      whom the force is used.                LJ 387
                                             Sahat v. Haji Berahim (1888) 4 Kyshe
      In every use of criminal force, an 337
      assault is included. An assault falls Empress v. Sahae Rae [1873] ILJ 3 Cal
      short of the actual infliction of the 623
      force, in that the action stops before Queen Emperor v. Vasta Chela (1913)
      the blow lands on the victim. If the 19 Bom 247
      force is actually used on the victim, Sultan Mohamed v. R [1952] MLJ 186
      the result would be that he will Muniandi v. PP [1963] MLJ 153
      suffer hurt or grievous hurt.

5&6   Culpable Homicide & Murder                Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, pp 397 – 432

      Is culpable homicide the same as          Cases:
      murder? According to Beaumont,            Tan Buck Tee v. PP [1961] 27 MLJ 176
      culpable homicide and murder is           Ismail b Hussin v. PP (1953) 19 MLJ 48
      one and the same thing. The only          Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. Pepsu AIR
      culpable homicide which is not            (1955) SC 425
      murder is where the five exceptions       Inder Singh v. Crown (1929) ILR 10 Lah
      to s.300 apply. However, according        477
      to Mayne, Culpable homicide and           R v. Govinda (1876-77) ILR 1 Bom 342
      murder is not the same. They are          Tham Kai Yau v. PP [1977] 1 MLJ 174
      distinct and the difference lies in       Mohd Yassin v. PP [1976] 1 MLJ 156
      the degree of probability and risk to     Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR
      life. If death is probable it is          (1958) SC 465
      murder but if it is likely, it is         Tan Chew Bok v. PP [1922] ISCR 205
      culpable homicide.                        PP v. William Tan (1970)

                                            Thambi Durai v. PP (1948) MLJ 48
                                            Lai Kim Hon v. PP [1981] 1 MLJ 84
                                            PP v. Aziz b Mat Shah [2004] 4 MLJ 127

7   Causation                               Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, pp 367 – 393

    Before an accused person charged        Cases:
    with culpable homicide or murder        Queen Empress v. Khandu Valad (1891)
    can be convicted, the prosecution       15 Bom 194
    must prove the actus reus and mens      In re Palani Goundan 42 Mad. 547
    rea of the offence, plus causation.     In re Kaliappa Goundan (1934) ILR 57
    The causation factor is important in    Mad. 158
    order to limit the liability of the     Thabo Meli v. R (1954) 1 WLR 228
    accused to what he is actually          Jordan v. R (1956) 40 Cri App Rep 152
    responsible for. If death is not        R v. Smith (1959) 2 QB 35
    caused by him, therefore, he cannot
    be liable for causing death, but only
    for causing grievous hurt or
    attempted murder.

8   Provocation & Other Special Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, pp 433 – 466
    Defences                             Koh & Myint Soe, pp 181 – 201
                                         Stanley Yeo, “The Provoked Reasonable
    The five special exceptions under Singaporean/Malaysian: An Update”
    s.300 are available to the accused [1987] 2 MLJ cclxxxv.
    person to reduce the offence and/or Sonarajah, “Towards a Liberal View of
    punishment. The most relied-on Provocation”, [1985] 2 MLJ cxliv.
    defence is that of provocation.
    Whether or not there is provocation Cases:
    is tested based on a reasonable man Mancini v. DPP [1942] AC 1
    test. But then, who is a reasonable Holmes v. DPP [1946] AC 588
    man? The answer to this question Bedder v. DPP [1954] 2 AllER 801
    is not the same in Malaysia, India R v. Ward [1956] 1 QB 351
    and England. A reasonable man in DPP v. Camplin [1978] AC 705
    Malaysia and India is a reasonable Mat Sawi v. PP (1958) MLJ 189
    man coming from the same Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR
    background as the accused and put (1962) SC 605
    in the same position as the accused. Chong Teng v. PP (1960) 153
    If he would have been provoked, PP v. Lasakke (1964) MLJ 56
    then the accused would be Ikau anak Mail (1973) 2 MLJ 153
    successful     in    this   defence. Chan Tong v. R [1960] MLJ 250
    Otherwise, not.                      PP v. Awang Raduan Awang Bol [1998]
                                         5 MLJ 460
                                         Lorensus Tukan v. PP [1988] 1 MLJ 251
                                         Ithinin Kamari v. PP 2 SLR 245
                                         Sis v. State of Punjab (1973) 75 PunjLR

                                              Soh Chew Hor (1960) 26 MLJ 254
                                              Vaeyapuri v. PP [1966] 1 MLJ 84
                                              Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR
                                              (1951) Punj 137
                                              Narayan Nair Raghavan Wair v. State of
                                              Travancore-Cochin AIR (1956) SC 99
                                              Mohamed Kunjo v. PP [1978] 1 MLJ 51
                                              Dasrath Paswan AIR (1956) Pat. 190
                                              Poonai Fattemah (1869) 12 WR (Cr) 7

9    Wrongful          Restraint          & Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, pp 1303 –1317
     Wrongful restraint means the             Haji Gulam Mohamed (1918) 21 BomLR
     keeping of a man out of a place          261
     where he wishes to be and has the        Madhab Chandra v. Nalini AIR (1964)
     right to be. The slightest unlawful      Cal 286
     obstruction to the liberty of the        Lourenz v. Simon (1938) 12 CLR 24
     person to go where and when he
     likes is punishable by law.
     Wrongful confinement is a form of
     lawful restraint whereby a man is
     kept within the limits out of which
     he wishes to go and has the right to

10   Kinapping & Abduction                    Koh Kheng Lien, pp 273 – 300
                                              Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, pp 1341 – 1385
     Kidnapping is of two kinds, from
     Malaysia       and    from     lawful    Cases:
     guardianship. The object of the law      Periasami Kangani [1910] 11 CLJ 368
     is to protect children of tender years   Sayyad Abdul Sattar v. E AIR (1928)
     from being taken away or seduced         Mad 585
     for improper purposes, and also for      Biseswar Misra v. The King AIR (1949)
     the protection of the rights of the      Orissa 22
     parents or the lawful guardians over     Neelakandan v. PP [1956] MLJ 36
     their wards. Kidnapping, as distinct     Ghouse Hj Kader Mastan v. Rex (1946)
     from abduction, does not require         MLJ 36
     use of force or deceit.                  PP v. Abdul Rahman [1963] MLJ 213
                                              Jaganadha Rao v. Kamaraju ILR 24
                                              Mad. 284
                                              Syed Abu Tahir a/l Mohamed Esmail v.
                                              PP [1988] 3 MLJ 485
                                              Pritam Singh v. PP [1970] 2 MLJ 239
                                              Wahab b Osman v. PP [2002] 7 MLJ 48

11   Rape                                  Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, 63 – 67, 70 –
                                           76, 188
     S.375 requires 2 things, namely, Clarkson, “Rape: Emasculation of the
     sexual intercourse by a man with a Penal Code: PPv. Zainal Abidin & Ors”
     woman and the sexual intercourse (1988) 1 MLJ cxiii
     must fall under any of the limbs
     enumerated therein. The first limb Cases:
     is relevant in a situation where the Mayers (1820) 12 Cox 311
     victim is in possession of her senses Fletcher (1859) 8 Cox. 131
     and therefore is capable of giving Williams [1923] 1 KB 340
     consent. The second limb is where Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 410
     the victim is insensible or Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23
     unconscious or so imbecile that she Papadimitripoulos v. R (1957) 98 CLR
     is incapable of any rational consent. 249
     In the third, fourth and fifth limbs, DPP v. Morgan [1976] AC 182
     there is consent but it is not such a PP v. Zainal Abiding & Ors [1987] 2
     consent as would excused the MLJ 741
     accused. The consent is invalidated PP v. Teo Eng Chan [1988] 1 MLJ 156
     by the circumstances mentioned in Ch”ng Lian Eng v. PP [1983] 1 MLJ 424
     the provision. The last limb refers
     to a situation where the victim is
     below 16 and consent is irrelevant.

12   Theft                                    Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, 527 – 542

     The offence of theft under s.378         Cases:
     requires the elements of dishonest       Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1957)
     intention, movable property, out of      SC 360
     possession of another, without the       Pyarelal v. State of Rajasthan AIR
     consent of such person and moves         (1963) SC 1094
     that property in order to such           Ward v. PP (1953) 19 MLJ 153
     taking. From the very definition of      Munandu v. PP [1984] 2 MLJ 83
     the word “dishonestly” in s.24 and       PP v. Ramaiah (1959) MLJ 10
     s.23, it is clear that there is no       Lai Chang Ngiang (1930) 1 JLR 30
     necessity for there to be intention to   Sitabai Porshuttom (1931) 32 CLJ 287
     permanently deprive the other of it,     R v. Lim Soon Gong (1939) 8 MLJ 10
     as is required under the English         Raja Mohammed v. R (1963) 19 MLJ
     law.                                     339

     Theft is an offence not against
     ownership but against possession,
     as such there can be theft of one’s
     own property. Possession can be
     classified as possession de jure or
     possession de facto.

13   Extortion                              Koh. Clarkson & Morgan, 543 – 557

     Extortion is distinguished from        Cases:
     theft by the obvious circumstances     Beh Tuck Seng v. R [1947] 13 MLJ 197
     that the consent is obtained by        Lee Choh Pet v. PP (1972) 1 MLJ 187
     putting the victim in fear of injury   Tan Cheng Kooi v. PP [1972] 2 MLJ 115
     to him or to any other. The offence    Vincent Lee v. R (1949) 15 MLJ 296
     is committed by the accused over-      Abu Hassan v. PP (1962) 28 MLJ 61
     powering the will of the victim.       Loh Kwang Seang v. PP [1960] 29 MLJ
     The gist of this offence is the fear   271
     of injury and injury as defined in     Ling Kai Huat v. PP [1966] 1 MLJ 123
     s.44 would include whatever is         PP v. Kang Siew Chong [1968] 2 MLJ
     illegally caused to mind, body,        39
     reputation or property.         The
     question is whether the threat to
     exercise legal powers would
     constitute injury.

14   Criminal Breach of Trust and Gan Beng v. PP [1938] FMSLR 318
     Criminal Misappropriation             R v. Tan Ah Seng (1935) 4 MLJ 273
                                           Chin Wah v. PP [1940] MLJ 292
     CBT is an offence committed by Bahruzzaman b Ali v. PP [1949] 15 MLJ
     someone who has been entrusted 23
     with property or dominion over Chang Lee Swee v. PP [1985] 1 MLJ 75
     property and he breaches that trust PP v. Yeoh Teck Chye [1981] 2 MLJ 176
     when he misappropriates, converts Murni b Mohd Taha v. PP [1986] 1 MLJ
     or uses or disposes the property. 260
     This is a very serious offence as the Ang Teck Hwa v. PP [1988] 1 MLJ 279
     offender is someone who is in the Yeow Fook Yuen v. R [1965] 2 MLJ 80
     position of trust. CMA, on the Tuan Puteh v. Dragon (1876) 3 Kyshe 83
     other hand, is committed by
     someone who gets possession of the
     property in an innocent or neutral
     manner; like when he finds the
     property and decided to keep it for
     himself. From the moment he
     changes his mind he commits the

References    Required:
              Koh, Clarkson & Morgan, (1989) Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia,
                 Malaysian law Journal, Kuala Lumpur.

              Molly Cheang, (1990) Criminal Law of Malaysia and Singapore, Professional
                  (Law) Books Publishers.
              Molly Cheang & Koh Kheng Lian, (1976) The Penal Codes of Singapore and
                  States of Malaya, vol. II, Quins Pte, Ltd., Singapore.
              Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, (1987) Law of Crimes, 23rd ed., Bharat Law House, New

Start Date
Batch of
Students to
be Affected

   Prepared by:                      Checked by:                   Approved by:

  __________________             __________________              ______________
  (                  )           (               )               (Dean/ Director)


To top