Part 2
Section 8
This section basically says that a fact is relevant if it shows or constitutes motives or preparation and actual conduct which lead to a fact in issue or relevant fact.
So let us break down Section 8 like how we had broken down Section 7. It will be broken down to three parts which are:
i. Motive
ii. Preparation
iii. Conduct
On the part of Motive, one can refer to illustrations (a) and (b) under section 8 of the act. To put it briefly, facts are said to be relevant if they form reasons or ‘motives’ to the actual action for example the phrase, “I’m going to kill her because....” The reason behind the act would prove to be the relevant fact.
In the case of Boota Singh, the court held that the police report made by the deceased 9 months before her death was admissible under section 8 as evidence of the motive and as showing the relations between the parties alleged by the prosecution. The court said that the report was not being tendered for the truth of its contents but for the fact that the statement was made (the motive of reporting). The report was admissible as conduct as it was not a mere statement but showed the deceased’s conduct in making the report.
In the case of Wong Foh Hin v PP, the court held that the evidence of the incestuous relationship between the accused and his daughter was an admissible evidence to prove motive for the murder of his daughter.
Moving on to the part of Preparation, it basically refers to arranging the means or measures necessary for committing the crime. One can also refer to illustrations (c) and (d) of the act for a better understanding. Preparation here does not refer to preparation to commit a crime but also to prevent discovery, help his escape or to avert suspicion from himself.
Conduct speaks for itself here. Basically if an act or conduct is done to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact that it would be admissible. Looking at illustration (e), (k), (k), (f), (g) and (h) of the act would also be helpful.
Looking at the case of Malkham Singh, the court held that the conduct or act of running away from the scene of crime was highly relevant thus it is admissible.
The case of Lee Lee Chong then said that the act of the accused in absconding from the scene of the crime was relevant under section 8 (2) which is similar to the case of Malkham Singh.
Differentiating Complaint from Statement
The difference was discussed in the case of PP v Aziz Bin Mohamad Din where it was said that a complaint is an expression of feelings and is made with a view to redress or punish and is made to someone in authority voluntarily and spontaneously. To me, the main difference here is that a complaint expects an action to be taken after complain was being made. Illustration (j) is a good example of a complain being made and a difference between a complain and a statement.
Another thing that one should know about proving a statement to be a complaint is that it is always up to the prosecution to prove it to be within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. This means the prosecution would have the burden of proof to prove this. In the case of PP v Aziz bin Mohamad Din, the prosecution had failed that the statement made by the rape victim had amounted to a complaint. The prosecution failed to prove that the statement made was done voluntarily and spontaneously therefore it was just a mere statement and not a complaint.
Essentially Section 8 embodies what a complaint is, and Section 157, 32 (a) embodies that of a statement. A complaint is said to be an expressive of feeling while a statement is an expression of knowledge, an imparting of knowledge. A complaint is made shortly after the occurrence whilst a statement is not a complaint therefore is not relevant under section 8 but is highly relevant as a dying declaration under section 32(a) or as corroborative evidence under section 157. A complaint is most importantly made with the view or hope to redress or punish another. A statement is not an evidence of conduct. A complaint is always made to someone with authority (not always a police).
Section 9
To understand this better, we should once again break down the section and this section will be broken down into seven parts as follows. The relevant facts under this section can be categorized as facts:
i. Which are necessary to explain a fact or relevant fact
ii. Which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact
iii. Which support an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact
iv. Which rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact
v. Which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant
vi. Which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened
vii. Which show the relation of the parties by whom any such fact was transacted
Teng Kum Seng v PP – the court admitted evidence that each of the victims identified the accused as the person who was extorting them over the telephone (identification by voice)
PP v Toh Kee Huat – In this case the court held that fingerprints were admissible evidence because it was used to prove identity (establish the identity of person)
Chan Sin v PP – during an identification parade, the persons of the parade should consist of persons from the same station in life so that there will be no great disparity of ages in the persons on the parade.
PP v Amar Singh – it is wrong to identify the accused whilst he is in jail.
Section 10
This section can be nicely explained using the case of Mirza Akhbar v King Emperor. In that case there was a conspiracy between a wife and her lover to murder her present husband. There were letters written between the wife and her lover which indicated that they wanted to get married and first had to dispose of the husband. In the letters they had decided to hire a hired killer. After the husband was killed, the hired killer was caught. The letters were admitted under section 10.
However when the wife was arrested, she made a statement saying that her lover was involved. The court held that this statement could not be admitted. Why? This is because section 10 cannot be widely construed so as to include statement made by ONE conspirator in the absence of the OTHER. This is not allowed once the conspiracy had been completed.
Section 11
This is a residuary section because it provides that facts which are not otherwise relevant under sections 5 to 10 will be relevant if they are inconstant with any fact in issue or relevant fact and by themselves or in connection with other facts, they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. Refer to illustration (a)
Chuah Chong Yen
A132934
Section 8
This section basically says that a fact is relevant if it shows or constitutes motives or preparation and actual conduct which lead to a fact in issue or relevant fact.
So let us break down Section 8 like how we had broken down Section 7. It will be broken down to three parts which are:
i. Motive
ii. Preparation
iii. Conduct
On the part of Motive, one can refer to illustrations (a) and (b) under section 8 of the act. To put it briefly, facts are said to be relevant if they form reasons or ‘motives’ to the actual action for example the phrase, “I’m going to kill her because....” The reason behind the act would prove to be the relevant fact.
In the case of Boota Singh, the court held that the police report made by the deceased 9 months before her death was admissible under section 8 as evidence of the motive and as showing the relations between the parties alleged by the prosecution. The court said that the report was not being tendered for the truth of its contents but for the fact that the statement was made (the motive of reporting). The report was admissible as conduct as it was not a mere statement but showed the deceased’s conduct in making the report.
In the case of Wong Foh Hin v PP, the court held that the evidence of the incestuous relationship between the accused and his daughter was an admissible evidence to prove motive for the murder of his daughter.
Moving on to the part of Preparation, it basically refers to arranging the means or measures necessary for committing the crime. One can also refer to illustrations (c) and (d) of the act for a better understanding. Preparation here does not refer to preparation to commit a crime but also to prevent discovery, help his escape or to avert suspicion from himself.
Conduct speaks for itself here. Basically if an act or conduct is done to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact that it would be admissible. Looking at illustration (e), (k), (k), (f), (g) and (h) of the act would also be helpful.
Looking at the case of Malkham Singh, the court held that the conduct or act of running away from the scene of crime was highly relevant thus it is admissible.
The case of Lee Lee Chong then said that the act of the accused in absconding from the scene of the crime was relevant under section 8 (2) which is similar to the case of Malkham Singh.
Differentiating Complaint from Statement
The difference was discussed in the case of PP v Aziz Bin Mohamad Din where it was said that a complaint is an expression of feelings and is made with a view to redress or punish and is made to someone in authority voluntarily and spontaneously. To me, the main difference here is that a complaint expects an action to be taken after complain was being made. Illustration (j) is a good example of a complain being made and a difference between a complain and a statement.
Another thing that one should know about proving a statement to be a complaint is that it is always up to the prosecution to prove it to be within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. This means the prosecution would have the burden of proof to prove this. In the case of PP v Aziz bin Mohamad Din, the prosecution had failed that the statement made by the rape victim had amounted to a complaint. The prosecution failed to prove that the statement made was done voluntarily and spontaneously therefore it was just a mere statement and not a complaint.
Essentially Section 8 embodies what a complaint is, and Section 157, 32 (a) embodies that of a statement. A complaint is said to be an expressive of feeling while a statement is an expression of knowledge, an imparting of knowledge. A complaint is made shortly after the occurrence whilst a statement is not a complaint therefore is not relevant under section 8 but is highly relevant as a dying declaration under section 32(a) or as corroborative evidence under section 157. A complaint is most importantly made with the view or hope to redress or punish another. A statement is not an evidence of conduct. A complaint is always made to someone with authority (not always a police).
Section 9
To understand this better, we should once again break down the section and this section will be broken down into seven parts as follows. The relevant facts under this section can be categorized as facts:
i. Which are necessary to explain a fact or relevant fact
ii. Which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact
iii. Which support an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact
iv. Which rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact
v. Which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant
vi. Which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened
vii. Which show the relation of the parties by whom any such fact was transacted
Teng Kum Seng v PP – the court admitted evidence that each of the victims identified the accused as the person who was extorting them over the telephone (identification by voice)
PP v Toh Kee Huat – In this case the court held that fingerprints were admissible evidence because it was used to prove identity (establish the identity of person)
Chan Sin v PP – during an identification parade, the persons of the parade should consist of persons from the same station in life so that there will be no great disparity of ages in the persons on the parade.
PP v Amar Singh – it is wrong to identify the accused whilst he is in jail.
Section 10
This section can be nicely explained using the case of Mirza Akhbar v King Emperor. In that case there was a conspiracy between a wife and her lover to murder her present husband. There were letters written between the wife and her lover which indicated that they wanted to get married and first had to dispose of the husband. In the letters they had decided to hire a hired killer. After the husband was killed, the hired killer was caught. The letters were admitted under section 10.
However when the wife was arrested, she made a statement saying that her lover was involved. The court held that this statement could not be admitted. Why? This is because section 10 cannot be widely construed so as to include statement made by ONE conspirator in the absence of the OTHER. This is not allowed once the conspiracy had been completed.
Section 11
This is a residuary section because it provides that facts which are not otherwise relevant under sections 5 to 10 will be relevant if they are inconstant with any fact in issue or relevant fact and by themselves or in connection with other facts, they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. Refer to illustration (a)
Chuah Chong Yen
A132934