LAW529/541 – LAW OF EVIDENCE I

TUTORIAL – HEARSAY AND PRESUMPTION

1. Devi was found murdered at her apartment on 2 March 2005. A few days before the
murder she had told her best friend, Ranee that her ex-husband, Devan had been
threatening to harm her if she did not comply with a court order to grant him access to
his two young children. State whether the statement made by Devi, the deceased, to
Ranee is relevant and admissible?

2. John is arrested for the murder of David who was stabbed to death with a screw
driver. The doctor who performed the autopsy failed to turn up at the hearing. Can the
prosecution proceed with its case in the absence of this witness?

3. Salim, a famous singer, is charged in the High Court at Shah Alam under Section 302
of the Penal Code. Salim is alleged to have murdered his lover, Carol, on 14
February 2010 at about 4am at No. 18, Jalan Selamat, Section 7, Shah Alam. Salim
pleaded not guilty and the case is fixed for hearing next week.

Advice the prosecution on the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence:

a. An entry in Carol’s diary on 13 February 2010 stating “I cannot go on like this
anymore, I must tell Salim that I do not love him anymore.”
b. A month before Carol’s murder, Suzie was told by Teena (Carol’s cousin) that
Carol hated Salim and was going to break up with him. Teena however has left
the country and is untraceable.
c. A statement made by Carol to the ambulance attendant, Kassim, while being
rushed to the hospital stating, “Salim did this to me.” Carol died in the ambulance
before reaching the hospital.

4. Attop was a clerk attached to Zita Co Sdn Bhd a firm engaged in the supply of
Electrical goods. It was Attop's duty to record in the sales record book particulars of
all sales made to customers. Bahmat is the manager of Zita Co Sdn Bhd. On 2nd
January 2005, Hashim, a salesman attached to Zita Co Sdn Bhd informed Bahmat
that he had sold a refrigerator to Sakti Sdn Bhd on credit for the sum of RM5,000.00.
Bahmat informed Attop about this sale and Attop duly entered particulars of the sale
in the sales record book. Zita Co Sdn Bhd later demanded payment and Sakti Sdn
Bhd refused to make the payment of RM5.000 due to Zita Co Sdn Bhd. Zita Co Sdn
Bhd commenced proceedings for the recovery of the sum due from Sakti Sdn Bhd.
Zita Co Sdn Bhd faces problems in proving its claim against Sakti Sdn Bhd . The
salesman Hashim has since left the employment of Zita Co Sdn Bhd and all attempts
to trace him have been unsuccessful. Attop died in a motor vehicle accident in
January 2006. The crucial evidence Zita Co Sdn Bhd is left with in proving its claim
against Sakti Sdn Bhd is the sales record book where particulars of the transaction
had been entered by Attop.
With reference to relevant statutory provisions and decided cases discuss the
admissibility of the sales record book.

5. Discuss the scope and effect of the presumption under Section 114(b) of the
Evidence Act 1950.

6. Discuss the scope and effect of the presumption under Section 114(g) of the
Evidence Act 1950.

7. Jaya had reported the theft of her credit card and her video camera. In her report
lodged at the Shah Alam police station, she named Gopal, her driver as the prime
suspect. The investigating officer, Inspector Ramli together with two constables
decided to carry out a search at Gopal’s house. Inspector Ramli then found the credit
card and the video camera hidden under Gopal’s bed. He could not provide a credible
explanation for the posession of those items. Discuss the relevant presumption that is
applicable in this factual situation.