FII: Whether Elsa is guilty for arson under section 436 of the Penal Code for causing

mischief by fire with intention to destroy her property

Issue: Whether Gerda’s evidence is relevant and admissible in the court
State the facts which Gerda heard a voice
“Heard a voice” – Hearsay evidence/ Direct evidence, then cite the case law
Subramaniam v PP - GR: Hearsay evidence is not admissible in the court
Now, the issue to solve is to whether exception under HE can be applied in current situation
-- Cite section 6, same transaction and make sure that evidence of Gerda falls within the
same transaction in section 6.
Section 6 applies as she is repeating the statement from the accused, Elsa, who is the
maker of the statement, said it spontaneously and contemporaneously.
Therefore, there is possibility that RG evidence can be applied to bring on Gerda’s evidence
under exception to hearsay rule.
In Malaysia, the courts apply two approaches to be taken.
Strict and liberal approach – answer is depends on how you justified the situation( any
approach is okay)
Strict approach: Gerda was not in the scene, cannot verified Elsa’s statement and it was not
spontaneous at the same time of FII.
Liberal approach: Elsa’s mind was dominated by the event, might not have element of
fabrication since the statement made contemporaneously.