Robbery in Penal Code Malaysia PDF

Preview

Summary

lomor...

Description

Robbery in Penal Code Malaysia

Robbery is said to be committed where the defendant has committed either extortion or theft and the defendant attempted or threatened to use in relation of violence for the purpose of commission of an offence. The general definition had published in Section 390 of Penal Code1. Section 390(1) PC 2clearly stated that all offences of robbery must include either theft or extortion. The prosecution must charge the defendant for either theft or extortion then only offence of robbery could be raised as robbery is a more aggravated offence. In Karali Prasad Dutta v East Indian Railway Company 3, the court defined the meaning of robbery as criminal taking from the person of another or his existence against his self-control following by violence or putting him in terror. Section 390(2) PC 4stated that to prove robbery by theft, the prosecution must prove the presence of Section 378 PC 5which is the offence of theft. In addition, the prosecution must also prove that defendant had used or attempted to use violence in relation to the ‘end’ of theft or carrying away the property and was not independent of the theft as well as the defendant acted voluntarily in his action. In Nga Po Thet6, the court stated the principle of robbery is that the offender who committed theft or in carrying away of in endeavouring taken of property attained by theft and committed the wrongful doings which stated in Section 390 PC. The wording "end" suggests that hurt, death, or wrongful restraint as well as instant fear of them is caused directly to complete the act of theft or carrying away the property. In Bishambhar Nath v Emperor7, the court held that it was not sufficient to prove that hurt was caused, 'in the circumstances'. The word ‘for that end’ meant it was only robbery if violence inflicted with primary object of enabling the commission of theft. Additional, the action of the accused in relation of causing hurt, death or wrongful restraint as well as instant fear of them need be in the form of voluntary. 1 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 390, (1936) 2 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 390(1), (1936) 3 Karali Prasad Dutta v East Indian Railway Company [1928] 48 CLJ 32 4 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 390(2), (1936) 5 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 378, (1936) 6 Nga Po Thet 1866 7 Bishambhar Nath v Emperor AIR 1941 Oudh 476

Besides, in PP v Chia Poh Yee8, the court held that theft only constituted to robbery when threat of force applied in the manner of theft for the objective of carrying away or committing the theft or attempt to take out the property acquired by theft. Section 390(3) PC 9stated that to prove robbery by extortion, the prosecution must first prove the presence of Section 383 PC 10which is the offence of extortion. The prosecution must show that the use of violence and the used violence caused, induced, compel or make victim give up the property in question. This can be seen in the case of Shikandar vs State11, the accused used knife to ambush the victims several times for the purpose of acquired the victim's belonging which are ear ring and key. The accused then liable under robbery. The general punishment for robbery stated in Section 392 PC

12

with

punishment of imprisonment may extend to 14 years and also liable to whipping or fine. Whoever attempt to commit a robbery shall be charged under Section 393 PC 13

for punishment of imprisonment may extend to 7 years and fine. Section 391 PC 14stated the offence of gang-robbery. The prosecution has to

prove there are two or more persons or whole number of them conjointly commit or attempt to commit the robbery. Besides, anyone provided assistance or present during the offence conducted which more than two person in manner of attempting, committing and aiding will be liable for gang-robbery. The general punishment for gang-robbery stated in Section 395 where punishment of imprisonment may extend to 20 years and whipping. In PP v Prasong Bunsom15, the court defined the words conjointly as to united or concerted action of the persons participating in the offence. Simple occurrence of the accused amongst the robbers is insufficient. It must be proved that the accused have conjointly committed or aided the commission of the robbery and

8 PP v Chia Poh Yee [1992] 2 SLR 804 9 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 390(3), (1936) 10 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 383, (1936) 11 Shikandar vs State AIR 1984 SC 1841 12 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 392, (1936) 13 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 393, (1936) 14 Penal Code of Malaysia, Section 391, (1936) 15 PP v Prasong Bunsom [1995] 3 SLR 433

there must be some act or omission which manifestly show that the accused was took part in the robbery. Conclusion, the description of robbery is quite straightforward yet provision in relation to gang robbers are unnecessarily complicated. It can be said that Malaysian model in relation of punishment are not being differentiated according to the time of the commission of the offence. Therefore, Malaysia court a give the discretion in either mitigating the punishment or maximise it according to the time of the commission of the offence....