UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

LAW OF EVIDENCE 1
(LAW 824)

GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
TUTORIAL 2

Prepared for:

PN. HABIBAH BINTI OMAR

Prepared by:

FARAH HASLINA BINTI HUSSIN 2018438828

NUR DIANA BINTI AHMAD 2018452894
NORFIRDAWATI BINTI OTHMAN 2018292666
The fact in issue for this case is whether Teja is guilty of killing Sali and she
can be charged for murder under Section 302 Penal Code. Hence there are 5
witnesses to provide evidences and results of relevancy and admissibility of
the evidences are as per below;

(a) Tuti

The issue regards to Tuti testimony whether the evidence given by her is
relevance and admissible to be tendered in court. The fact in issue is Tuti testify that
she saw Sali got into the bus alone around 2pm and she was the only passenger in
the bus at that time.

On the other hand, when Tuti testify to the court that she saw Sali got into the
bus alone and she is the only passenger, it is a direct evidence. It shows Tuti
perceived and observes clearly during that time. The situation described that Sali was
alone in the bus it creates opportunity for accused person to commit crime on her.
Tuti’s statement to the court indicates evidence of opportunity under Section 7 of the
evidence Act on what she perceived and observed what had happened to Sali.

The example of case that can be referred as evidence of the opportunity

Anwar Ibrahim. In this case, when cctv recorded on the movement of accused and
victims got into the lift, it was a direct evidence and indicates of the opportunity by
accused person under Section 7 Evidence Act. The case can be applied in Tuti’s
evidence where she saw the victims got into the bus alone whereby it bring the
opportunity for the accused person, Teja to commit crime on Sali. And this case also
can be applied under Section 9 Evidence Act, whereby the statement made by Tuti
can be rebut upon statement made by Teja to Mak Tom, it proves that Teja was lying.

Therefore, based on the above analysis evidence by Tuti is relevant and admissible in
invite opportunity for Teja in Murder of Sali.
(b) Ah Tok

The issue regards to Ah Tok testimony whether it is relevance and admissible

to be tendered in court. The facts in issue is Ah Tok will testify because of he saw
Teja looked disarrayed, nervously came home at 3.30pm and Teja asked Ah Tok to
lie that he was watching tv with him on that day if happen anyone inquiring Ah Tok.
Furthermore, when Ah Tok provides evidence mentioned that he saw Teja
reaction and his movement are suspicious; it indicates evidence of state of things
perceived by Ah Tok under Section 7 Evidence Act. Moreover, when Ah Tok was
giving evidence how Teja’s reaction as stated in Section 8(2) Evidence Act, statement
and action is conduct whereby Teja asked him to lie as well. In addition, the evidence
of time is involved when Ah Tok said that he saw Teja at 3.30pm which fall under
Section 9 Evidence Act.
Hence, in this case, the evidence provided by Ah Tok which clearly saw Teja’s
reaction conduct to lie and the time strongly show as the main subject matter and
something’s wrong has been done by Teja.

Therefore, evidence given by Ah Tok on Teja’s conduct him to lie where he

about and his nervous reaction is relevant and admissible to bring to the court.
( c ) Mak Jah

There are several issues in Mak Jah’s evidence. The issues are whether Mak
Jah’s evidence are relevant and admissible or not to testify in court on her
identification of Teja at police station and also on Mak Jah’s visual identification of
Teja on dock after resting collecting woods.

There are two fact in issue to be raised in this Mak Jah testimony. First of all, the fact
in issue in this case is Mak Jah has identified Teja in a cell alone while being
summoned by police in police station when she wanted to make a report.

In case of Sarjeet Singh, the identification parade procedure was done by line
up and not alone. It was held that an identification parade was necessary if the
accused persons are unknown or strangers to the identifying witness.

In contrary with Mak Jah’s situation which she has identified the accused earlier
without followed standard procedure (SOP) of Identification Parade (IP) and
identification by Mak Jah in cell where she notice from the same shirt he wore in the
cell is highly prejudicial.

Therefore, as a conclusion, the identification procedure with Teja’s alone in the cell as
evidence by Mak Jah is not relevant and not admissible in court.

Second of all, the fact in issue of Mak Jah’s testimony is when she saw Teja past her
while she was resting after collecting woods at around 20 meters from unnumbered
house. Under Section 9 of Evidence Act, visual identification is applied when Mak Jah
identified someone who passed her while she was resting after collecting some
woods.

In example for the case of Jaafar bin Ali, the dock identification are not acceptable
in court because the identification parade procedure flawed when police shows a
picture of accused person to victim before the identification parade done and the
whether was dark and accused person have dark skin. So in this case, Mak Jah did
not see the face of person who passed her clearly as she was resting and she was
not focusing the actual scenario happened around her, hence the visual identification
was not in a proper way.

Therefore, it was a poor quality of the witness statement and the evidence
given by Mak Jah on the dock is rejected which is not relevant and not admissible.

d) Meen

The issue is whether Meen evidence is relevance and admissible or not to be

tendered in court. The evidence given by Meen to the court in terms of facts in issue
is that Sali told her that Teja showed threatening look to her when she replied in
anger towards Teja after he suggested to spend the time together.

The statement given by Meen obviously is hearsay because Meen did not hear
directly from Teja and it can be a storytelling by Sali which there is no exception. The
statement made is admissible for the purpose of proving that any fact stated by the
person in such occasional is true. The hearsay rules will be infringed where reliance
is placed on the evidence of someone not before the court and such evidence is
adduced in order to prove that the facts as stated are true under Section 2 of
Evidence Act in general rule of hearsay.

The example in the case of Subramaniam where the accused was charged
with unlawful possession of ammunition. His defense was that he has been captured
by terrorist and was acting under duress. The trial judge held that the evidence of his
conversation with the terrorist was inadmissible under what he believe to be the
hearsay rule unless the terrorist themselves testified
.
Therefore, evidence given by Meen to the court is a hearsay evidence and it is
not relevant and not admissible.
(e) Weena

The issue is whether Weena evidence is relevant and admissible to be brought

to the court. The facts in issue is Weena received a telephone called from Sali at
2.45pm on 4 November 2010 one day before the body found and heard hysterical
sound and asked for her help with the words “ Teja is trying to hurt me”.

When Weena tell the court that she heard a voice of Sali shouted and asking
for help without seeing what exactly happened, it is direct evidence. When she heard
name of Teja trying to hurt Sali, it shows whats Weena perceive during that time, if
Weena is giving evidence to the court it indicated evidence of the state of things
under section 7 of the Evidence Act on what she was perceived and heard had
happened to Sali. On the other hand when Weena said she heard Sali said “Teja is
trying to hurt her” is hearsay. However there is a Res-Gestae whereby the time of
information directly from the victim and the situation happened was spontaneous and
contemporaneous in nature under Section 6 of Evidence Act and Liberal Approach
can be applied.

The example of case that can be referred as evidence of the state of things
Leith McDonald Ratten. In this case, the operator heard the hysterical voice and
sobs it was a direct evidence and indicates evidence of the state of things perceived
by the operator under Section 7 of Evidence Act. This case can be applied in Weena
evidence where she heard Sali shouted and ask for help from hurt by Teja.
Furthermore, In reference to case Res-Gestae, ‘R v. Andrews’ was an important
english decision on the res gestae principle and It showed a more liberal approach.

Therefore, the statement of evidence given by Weena which involves direct

evidence and Res-gestae situation directly from the victim, is relevant and admissible
to bring to the court.