Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

S 299 of PC stated that a person commits the offence of culpable homicide when he
causes death by doing an act with the intention to cause death, or with the intention to
cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is
likely to cause death by such act.

1st limb: “intention of causing death” share the same mens rea as S 300 which is
murder and this had cause confusion.

2nd limb: “intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death” which is
comparable with para (b) and (c) of S 300. The difference is that under (b) and (c) the
mens rea is heavier because the accused must not only have done the act intentionally
but also have in his mind the person will die

Tham Kai Yau & Ors v PP:

Scenario: Appellants attacked victim with saw and choppers, causing serious injuries.

Charge: Charged under culpable homicide (S 299) due to technical issues, despite
evidence of intention to kill.

Court's View: Degree of risk to human life determines murder or culpable homicide.
If death is likely, it's culpable homicide; if most probable, it's murder.

3rd limb: “knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death” which is
comparable to para (d) of S 300. The difference is that under s 300 (d), likelihood is
not enough in order to prove for murder. Under this situation, it must be shown with
possibility that under (d), it is 70:30 (the possibility of death is 70%); whereas for the
third limb of S 300 which is likelihood, it is 50:50 (the possibility of death and
survival is 50 each).

Ramiah v PP

● Lee Hun Hoe CJ held that the exceptions under S 300 is not required to be
considered unless the act done constitutes, at least prima facie, murder by
reason of the intention with which it is found to be done. It was further held
that an offence may amount to culpable homicide under S 304 of PC even if it
does not fall under any exceptions under S 300.
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

S 304 of PC stated that whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder
shall be punished
 (a) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to thirty years, and shall
also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with
the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death; or

(b) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine
or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.

S 304 of PC can be use when the court had proved that the act falls under the
exception of murder. S 304(a) of PC apply when the act had failed to prove under S
300(b) and (c) and also first and second limb of S 299 whereas S 304(b) of PC apply
when the act had failed to prove under S 300(d) and third limb of S 299. The
punishment is distinguish based on the types of mens rea ie. (a) Intention to cause
death or bodily injury; and (b) Knowledge.

Elements

1. The death of a person (AR)

2. The death was caused by the act of accused (Causation)

3. The accused either (MR):

(a) Intended such act to cause death or cause such bodily injury that was likely
to cause death; OR

(b) Knew that such act would be likely to cause death

PP v Megat Shahrizat Megat Shahrur

● The accused, a big tough guy, was called to take care of the deceased, a small
child. The accused hit and slapped the deceased due to his wrongful act. The
accused proceeded to put a cushion over the deceased and sat on it in order to
stop the deceased from crying. The deceased died and the cause of death was
the injuries resulted from broken rib.
● The court agreed with the learned High Court trial judge in considering
whether a prima facie case had been made out against the respondent under S
300 of PC. After considering the fact, the Court held that there was no
intention to kill but intention to be likely to cause injury since the accused as a
big though guy sat on the deceased who was merely a child. The Court further
stated that it was very hard to go for para (b) and (c) of S 300 and the court
decided to go for S 299 due to the likelihood of causing hurt.
 ● This shows that the applicability of S 299 only came into question once S 300
had been ruled out. This is an example of court to charge a person under S 299
without using the exception under S 300 of PC.

Cheong Kam Kuen v Public Prosecutor

● The accused was found to have been together with the body of the deceased.
The accused had contended that the victim had started the fight with him.
Later, there was a report that showed the deceased had suffered multiple
injuries but also apart from the injuries to the head, the other injuries were not
fatal.
● However, the court cannot conclusively decide which injury cause the death. It
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that those injuries inflicted upon the
deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Hence the court convicted the accused under culpable homicide under S
304(a) of PC due to the reason that he was found to be with the body of
deceased and inflicted injury on the deceased.