Interested-Witness - Dr Ramalinggam PDF

Preview

Summary

Dr Ramalinggam...

Description

Interested Witness (saksi berkepentingan) 1) Meaning ---> No formal definition of interested witnesses but evidence from an interested witness must be distinguished from evidence of close relative. 2) Not all relative of a victim is an interested witness it depends on the facts of the case.   



In the case of Liow Siow Long vs PP, PW1 testified against the accused, He said the accused had his headlight on, were at speed and encroached on to his side of the road. It happen to be, that PW1 was a brother of the two deceased person. Is PW1 an interested witness? Is his evidence tainted? It was decided by the judge that PW1 is not an interested witness because the testimony of a close relations is not tainted IF it is reliable in the sense that the witness are competent witnesses who were at the scene of the occurance and could have seen what had happened. However, if it is proved otherwise, then their testimony is tainted and require corroboration.

3) There is no legal presumption that an interested witness should not be believed. (Balasingham v PP) 4) Interested witness may affect the probative value and weight of evidence (Balasingham v PP) 5) Interested can also mean someone who may have some direct intrest in the results of the litigation. For an example, the son testify against his own mother out of vengeance and hatred to take the mom property. 6) In Liow Siow Long v PP one of the prosecution witness was attacked on the sole ground that he is an intrested witness because he was the brother of the two deceased person. It is difficult to accept the witness statement because the evidence may have been tainted. (Accident case melibatkan lori dan kereta, PW 1 testify that the lorry encroached on his side of the road and knock into his car which left him pengsan. Later on he said that lorry was speeding. His evidence was attacked don the sole ground that he is an interested witness because he was the brother of the two deceased.) 7) Testimony of close relations is not tainted if it is otherwise reliable in the sense that the witnesses are competent witnesses who were at the scene of the occurrence and could have seen what had happened. 8) In the case of PP vs Foong Chee Cheong and Lim Boon San, the court held that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. FSA

Case Name: Rozmi Yusof vs PP (Court of Appeal, Putrajya) Facts of the case:

The appellant was charged for the murder of the deceased under s. 302 of the Penal Code. At the end of the prosecution case, the trial judge found the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellant hence he was directed to enter his defence. The appellant submitted that it was self defence and the act of slashing the neck of the victim was an accidental act in response to the victim attacking him. The trial judge found that such defence failed to create a reasonable doubt and went against the weight of evidence as adduced by the prosecution. The trial judge thus convicted and sentenced the appellant to death. Issues: Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed. The appellant contended that the learned judge, inter alia, failed to consider:-

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

that the deceased had carried a weapon that the appellant had suffered injuries SP8, the victim’s brother, who was an interested witness, had also participated in the fight between the appellant and the deceased the appellant had acted in self defence.

Judgment in court of appeal

1.

SP8, the brother of the accused was an interested witness and he did participate in the fight. His evidence ought to be treated with caution and was not done so in the instant case. In the case of Mangendran Mohan v pp, “It is clear to us that from her testimony she was an interested witness with a grudge against the appellant and had a purpose of her own to serve. In our judgement her evidence must be treated with caution and requires corroboration.”

2.

Thus, the failure by the trial judge to follow the discretions set out in Magendran’s case in respect of caution and corroboration makes the decision perverse and not according to law. Which also attract article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution to order an acquittal as the evidence to convict was based solely on PW8’s evidence which is not safe and according to law.

For reasons stated above, the court of appeal judge take the view that it is not safe to convict and accordingly the conviction and sentence by the High Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and discharged....