3/11/2022

 When a person is forced to commit a crime by threatening him and

left him with no choice, his actions are morally involuntary.
 S. 94 Penal Code
 Except for murder and offences against the state punishable with death,

GENERAL nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it

by threats, which at the time of doing it, reasonably causes the
apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the

EXCEPTIONS : consequence.

DURESS

1 2

RESTRICTIONS ON DEFENCE
3 REQUIREMENTS 4
 The defence would not be available for:-
 A person who places himself in situations where they become subject of
the threat
 It requires that:-
 Offence under S. 302 Penal Code
 The threat must be of death
 Offence punishable with death in Chapter IV Penal Code:-
 It must be instant  Waging war against the YDPA, Ruler or YDPN under S. 121 Penal Code
 The threat is directed at the person of the accused  Offences against the person of the YDPA, Ruler or YDPN under S. 121A Penal
himself; and Code
 The threat must continue to exist at the time of doing the
act
 Menacing effect of threat persists at the time of doing
the act

3 4

5 6

 Case: PP v Lynch (1975) AC 653 where it was held that if a person
choose to be in IRA which is known to him that would use violence,
he cannot claim that he was under duress if he being compelled to
commit crime
 See also Case: Mohamed Yusof bin Haji Ahmad (1983) 2 MLJ 167
 The threat must be of death:-
 The threat must be threat of death and not extreme torture or serious
injury short of death is insufficient
 Case: Latif Khan AIR (1995) 20 Bom 394 where it was held that nothing but
fear of instant death would be a defence to a policeman who tortures
any one by order of his superior
 The fear must be a reasonable fear i.e instant death as in s. 94 Penal Code

5 6
 3/11/2022

7 8
 The threat is of instant death
 The threat must be directed at the accused person:-
 The threat of future violence is insufficient as the threat must be imminent,
extreme and persistent  It must be directed to himself and not a threat to kill the wife, children,
parents etc.
 Case: Maganlal AIR (1889) 14 Bom 115
 Menace of threat must be present at the time of the act:-
 Case: Tan Seng Ann (1949) 15 MLJ 89 where it was held that there was no
duress present or continuing when the appellant went out in the car with  The threat of instant death must be present and continuing to present at
the other Chinese men. The fact the Chinese men left the parcel in his the time of doing the act
house when he refused to cooperate to keep the parcel was insufficient
 Case: Mohamed Yusof bin Haji Ahmad where it was held that it must be
to raise the defence of duress
reasonable fear at the very time. If the offence is committed at the time
of the threat has been removed, the accused person will not be able to
raise defence under s. 94.

7 8

9 10

 The court held that the fact he had carried the bag for about one  Contrast it with the case of Subramaniam (1956) MLJ 220 where the
and a half hour and placed the bag on the platform while court held that there was threat continuing to be present at the time
purchasing the ticket to Padang Besar shows that the mission has of carrying the ammunition although the terrorists had left at the time
been completed. He made no attempt to approached any member of captured. But the menace might still continuing to present at the
of the public or authorities for help when had chance to do so. time of captured as the terrorists might have come back at any time
 The distance between the accused himself and the Thai man was 20
feet away and he had made no attempt to ask for help. There was
nothing to suggest that the threat was present and continuing at that
time

9 10

11 12

 An accused person who committed the crime after the threat has
loss its effect cannot rely on the defence of duress or he has the
chance to rescue himself and continue to commit it.
 A threat of future violence is insufficient as it is too remote as it is
insufficient to overpower the will at the time of commission.
 The accused shall not commit the offence in order to get rid the
threat hanging over him and due to immediate and unavoidable
pressure or merely to secure his own peace of mind.
 See also the case of R v Hudson & Taylor (1971) 2 QB 202
 The threat must be objective in character:-
 The accused must reasonably apprehend instant death.
 The apprehension of death must be of a reasonable man apprehend
death
 Although there was no express threat of death but merely pointed out at
the vital part of the body which normally results in instant death would be
sufficient for the apprehension of death.
 Case: Mohamed Yusof bin Haji Ahmad

11 12