Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Assignment - Prima Facie Case [Criminal Law]

Assignment - Prima Facie Case [Criminal Law]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 293 |Likes:
Published by Khairul Idzwan

More info:

Published by: Khairul Idzwan on Aug 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/13/2013

pdf

text

original

 
(b)Apel was convicted for the offence of rape of Comel. The issue is whether allthe evidences tendered were sufficient to prove a prima facie case against Apel.Section 375(b) of the Penal Code provides that an offence of rape is committed whena sexual intercourse is done by a man with a woman without the woman’s consent.The provision further adds that a mere penetration of the woman’s vagina is sufficientto constitute the offence of rape. In order to determine whether or not a prima faciecase exists against Apel, there must be a nexus between the elements of rape and thequality of the evidences tendered.The first element to constitute the offence of rape is that there must be an intercourse between a man and a woman that is, there must be penetration. In the case of CheongYou Hoi [1999] 4 MLJ 518, the court decided that any amount of penetration issufficient where although there was no ejaculation nor presence of semen, as long as penetration can be proved, an offence of rape has been committed.By looking at the evidence tendered to the court, it can be said that the first element toconstitute the offence of rape has been fulfilled. The testimony of Dr. Medik whichwas given on 2 April 2008, saying that there were injuries in Comel’s private partsshowed that there was penetration. In Cheong You Hoi, the judge held that penetration existed even if there was no ejaculation or presence of semen but in thecase of Apel, semen was found in Comel’s private part (P4).After being examined by Dr. Kemist, the semen turned out to be of Oren’s. Nevertheless, the fact that the pubic hair found inside Comel’s vagina is Apel’sshowed that Apel might have been penetrated Comel as well because the pubic hair will not be in a Comel’s vagina unless he penetrated Comel. So, the fact that therewere injuries in Comel’s private parts and Apel’s pubic hair inside Comel’s private parts showed that there is a nexus between the penetration with the evidenceexplained above.The second element of rape that needs to be proved is that the sexual intercourse wasdone without the woman’s consent. In the case of PP v Victor Rajoo [1995] 3 SLR 417, the court held that the fact that there were no injuries was not fatal to a charge of 

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
miszday liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->