Non-fatal offences

Criminal Intimidation
Sec. 503: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property,
with intent to cause alarm to him, or to cause him to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do, or to omit to do any act he is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution
of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
- Its purpose is to induce the person threatened to do or to refrain from doing
something or omit to do something.
- It is punishable under Sec. 506

- In order to establish criminal intimidation, two elements must be fulfilled (Uthaya

Kumar Ponnusamy):
- Actus reus: The threat to injure a person, his reputation or property must be
communicated
- Mens rea: There must be an intention to influence the mind of such person (to
cause alarm, or to cause him to do any act he is not bound to do, or to omit
any act he is entitled to do)
- If the threat is made with the intention mentioned in the section and
overcomes the ordinary free will of a firm man, it is an offence.
- Whether or not the victim was actually frightened does not affect the
question of liability as it is the intention of the accused that has to be
considered in deciding whether what was stated comes within the
mischief of the section.
Capability of accused:
- Ramanathan Yogendran: A charge of criminal intimidation could succeed even
if the person making the threat was in no position to carry it out. This is
because what is essential to be considered is the intention of the maker and
the nature of the threat. It suffices that the maker intends to cause alarm, but
if the accused was clearly incapable of carrying out the threat, such fact must
be considered.
- Jogendra Kumar v Hem Chandra: The accused, who was an old, sick man of 74
years threatened to kill a boy, the complainant, while talking to a group of
people. Evidence disclosed that none of those present were actually alarmed
and thus, criminal intimidation was held to not have occurred.
Effect upon the victim:
- Habibullah v State: The victim must feel as a reasonable man that the accused
was going to convert his words into action. It should be shown that the victim
had some objective basis to apprehend alarm, even if he was not actually
alarmed. Thus, the threat must be sufficient to overcome the ordinary free
will of a firm man.
- Aziz bin Wee: When the complainant wanted to remove the goods of the
accused, an unlicensed hawker, he was told to "try if you want to get it." As
the complainant approached the goods, the accused took out a knife and
pointed it at him. Held: The threat was of one to cause injury to the
complainant as anyone faced with such a threat would have been gravely
alarmed. Thus the accused was convicted of criminal intimidation.

- Mohamed Nor: Where the accused threatened the complainant to leave the
house while holding an unsheathed sword. Held: The threat came with a
qualification that only if the complainant and his friends refused to leave the
house would bloodshed then follow. The threat itself could not cause alarm of
injury to the complainant and that only when the complainant adamantly
refused to leave the house could the element of alarm exist. (Qualified threat)

- It is not essential that a weapon must be produced in order to sustain a charge

under this provision as mere words would suffice.
- In Lee Yoke Choong, Ong J held that where an accused gave a
complainant two alternatives, that is to withdraw a police report
lodged against the accused, or else acid would be thrown on the
complainant to blind him, that was sufficient to bring the accused
within the offence of criminal intimidation.

- Sinnasamy Kaliappan: Where the evidence adduced in the trial court

revealed that the complainant was at a house when she heard a loud
voice and saw the accused holding a knife outside. Although he merely
used the knife to hit the metal gate of the house, he then threatened
the complainant by asking her to pay a sum of RM50,000 in five days,
otherwise he would kill the complainant and her family. The accused
was then convicted for criminal intimidation.
Assault
Sec. 351: Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely
that such gesture or preparation will cause any person to apprehend that he is about to use
criminal force upon that person, is said to commit an assault.
- It is the gesture or preparation conveying the threat of violence that causes
the apprehension that thus, constitutes the offence.
- Mohamed Abdul Kader: Assault requires no contact with the body.
- S Swam Pillay: The accused was charged under assault for pointing a revolver
at the complainant in a coffee shop.

- Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu v S Nadarajah: The question whether a certain act
amounts to an assault depends upon the reasonable apprehension which a
person entertains about criminal force being imminent. If there was no
present ability to use criminal force, or the circumstances were such that the
use of criminal force was unlikely or impossible, there cannot be reasonable
apprehension that criminal force was imminent.

- Jashanmal Jhamatmal: Where the accused put out his hand towards a woman
in a menacing manner so as to cause her to apprehend that he was about to
use criminal force, assault was established.
Mere words cannot amount to an assault, but the words which a person uses may give to his
gestures such a meaning that would make them amount to an assault.
- Tuberville v Savage: The accused placed his hand on the hilt of his sword saying
“if it was not assize time, I would not take such language from you.” Although
placing his hand on the hilt was a sufficient gesture, the accompanying words
indicated that force would not be used. Thus, there was no threat present.
The threat must be of immediate force:
- Threats of future violence are not covered under this offence.
- Smith v Chief Superintendent, Waking Police Station: A woman was held to be
assaulted when she saw the accused lurking through her closed bedroom
window at 11 pm. Although he was outside and would have to break the
window to climb in before he could inflict violence on her, the threat of force
was held to be sufficiently immediate.
If the threat is conditional upon the victim doing something, the threat of force is not
immediate, and thus there is no assault.
- Birbal Khalifa: The accused, objecting to having his thumb print taken by the
policeman, produced a lathi and threatened to break the head of anyone who
asked for his thumb print. Held: As the threat was conditional, it did not
amount to an assault.
Criminal Force
Sec. 350: Criminal force is when a person intentionally uses force upon another without that
person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of
such force illegally to cause injury, fear, or annoyance.
Sec. 349: A person is said to use force when he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation
of motion to another person or to any substance bringing it into contact with any part of
another person’s body, anything worn or carried by that other person, or anything that would
cause such contact to affect another’s sense of feeling by:
- His own bodily power
- Disposing any substance
- Inducing any animal to move, change its motion or cease to move
To constitute an offence of criminal force, there must be:
- Force
- Mohamed Abdul Kader: Unlike assault, an act of criminal force requires
the application of force to the other party.
- The accused who had a chopper in his hand and said “if you go
in, I will hammer you,” could not be found guilty under the
offence of criminal force as there was no actual force used.
- The force must be without the victim’s consent
The force must be intentionally inflicted. It is not sufficient to constitute an offence if the force
was accidentally or recklessly inflicted.
- Ng Eng Huat: It was clear that the act of the appellant reversing his car was not
a negligent act, but an intentional and deliberate act and therefore, he had
used criminal force on the driver of the other car.
- Jai Ram: Raising a stick to hit another person is a use of criminal force if it
causes the other to flee to save himself or even just to move slightly to avoid
being struck.
Goh Ang Huat: The force must be used on a person. The person must be the ultimate object
of the force.
- Bihari Lal: There is no offence of criminal force when the lock of a house is
broken.
- Telapolo Sabbab: There is no offence of criminal force where a ladder is
removed, leaving the victim stranded on the roof of a house.
- Chandrika Sao v Hazari Lal: A tax inspector was examining books in a shop
when the appellant entered and snatched them away. By seizing the books,
the appellant had caused the hands of the inspector to jerk and thus, caused
motion, which was held to be a use of criminal force.
 - Raja Izzuddin Shah: Where the accused was found guilty for the use of criminal
force when he slapped the complainant, dragged him by the shirt and pushed
him against the wall.

- Tah Beng Chye: The appellant took the complainant to some bushes where he
took off his shorts and lowered his inner pants. He then made the complainant
take off her coat and trousers, leaving her in her knickers, which she refused
to take off. An old man then came and the complainant shouted for help. Held:
There was insufficient evidence to constitute rape, but there was, in his
attempts to remove her knickers, sufficient evidence of use of criminal force
with the intention to outrage her modesty.
Penalties heavier than that for simple assault or use of criminal force: Sec. 354 (outrage
modesty), Sec. 355 (intention to dishonour), Sec. 356 (during theft)

Hurt
Sec. 321: Whoever does any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the
knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, and does cause hurt to any person, is
said to “voluntarily cause hurt”
- Punishable under Sec. 323

- ‘Voluntarily’ under Sec 39: When he causes it by means whereby he intended

to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew
or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
- ‘Hurt’ under Sec. 319: The causing of bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any
person
- ‘Infirmity’ in Anis Beg: The inability of an organ to perform its normal
function which may be temporary or permanent.

- In order to establish the offence of hurt, there must exist:

- Actus reus: The causing of bodily pain, disease or infirmity
- Mens rea: The intention or knowledge to cause hurt

- Bodily hurt may be caused by many acts which are not assaults.
- Jashanmal Jhamatmal: There is nothing in Sec. 319 that suggests that hurt
should be caused by direct physical contact between the accused and the
victim.
- The accused confronted a woman in the dark at the bottom of a
staircase, uttered a piercing shout and pointed a pistol at her. She
collapsed from nervous shock and was found in a state of hysteria.
Held: A state of temporary mental impairment would constitute
infirmity, and hence, the accused was found guilty for causing hurt.
 - Manzoor Ahmad v State of Allahabad: After an argument, the accused fed a
boy of fifteen years copper sulphate which caused him to collapse and
subsequently be admitted to the hospital for a stomach wash. Held: The
accused was guilty for causing hurt.
Sec. 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
- Muniandi: There is an offence if the instrument used is one for shooting,
stabbing, cutting or if used is likely to cause death.

- Sultan Mohamed: In determining a charge under this provision, the question

is whether the instrument used was intrinsically likely to cause death and not
whether the instrument if used in a certain way might cause death.
- In this case the appellant was convicted under Sec. 323 for voluntarily
causing hurt, as the stick in which he used against the victim was not
likely to cause death due to its length and width.

- Ng Ah Tak: The court upheld the conviction under Sec. 324 where the hurt was
caused by the use of acid.
Sec. 336: Punishment for an act done so rashly or negligently which endangers the life or
personal safety of others (exception to the offences of causing hurt)
- Queen Empress v Nga Tha Kaing Ku: Ingredients for this offence are that
- The accused did the act in question
- The accused did it rashly or negligently
- The act was such as would endanger the life or personal safety of others

- Wan Mohd Rafain Wan Ismail: The accused was charged under Sec. 336 for
throwing stones at the Federal Reserve Unit personnel. Held: There was no
evidence adduced to show that the act of throwing stones by the accused was
rash, nor that it would endanger the life or personal safety of others.
- Sec. 336 does not apply where the act is directed to the causing of
positive harm as in the case of an assault. It only applies when the act
is done rashly or negligently and with no intent or knowledge to injure
someone in particular or humanity in general.
Grievous hurt
Sec. 322: Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows
himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, he is said to “voluntarily cause grievous hurt.”
- Sng Siew Ngoh: For the offence of grievous hurt, it is necessary to show:
- The hurt was caused voluntarily
- Mahfar Sairan: Where an action lacked intention or knowledge,
it also lacks the essential element of voluntarily done.
- The accused intended or knew he was likely to cause grievous hurt
- The hurt caused was grievous hurt

- Sec. 320: The following kinds of hurt are designated as “grievous”

- (a) Emasculation: Depriving a man of virility, whereby the impotency caused
must be permanent and not merely temporary and curable
- (b) Privation of sight: To cause someone to permanently lose the sight of either
eye either through causing blindness or gouging out the entire eye.
- Sng Siew Ngoh: The respondent was held to have voluntarily caused
grievous hurt by poking the victim’s eye with his fingers leading to the
permanent privation of the sight of one eye.
- (c) Privation of hearing: To cause permanent deafness
- (d) Privation of member/joint: To cause permanent loss of use of a limb or joint
- (e) Destruction or impairment of member/joint: To cause permanent
impairment or injury which diminishes the usefulness of a limb or joint
- Long Samat: Where the accused inflicted multiple incised wounds on
various parts of the victim with a parang and amputated the left middle
finger of the victim at the middle portion.
- (f) Disfiguration of face or head: To cause an injury which diminishes the
victim’s personal appearance. It need not be substantial, so long as it is
permanent.
- Karnal Singh: The accused threw sulphuric acid on the victim’s face
causing burns all over.
- (g) Fracture or dislocation: To cause the breaking of a bone, or the
displacement or putting out of a joint of a bone. It need not have a lasting
effect, and it is immaterial that the bone can be re-joined again.
- Choo Thiam Hock: The accused caused various injuries upon the victim,
including three fractured ribs.

- (h) Hurt which endangers or incapacitates

- Three limbs to this provision:
- Hurt which endangers life
- Hurt which causes the sufferer to be, within 20 days:
- In severe bodily pain, or
- Unable to follow his ordinary pursuits
- Hurt which endangers life
- Ramla v State of Rajasthan: The injury which is found should be such
that it may put the life of the injured in danger. A simple injury can only
be grievous if its nature and dimensions or effects are such that, in the
opinion of the doctor, it actually endangers the life of the victim.

- Koh Lee Beng: Where the accused, in his attempt to murder the victim,
stabbed the victim while he was being held by two other men.
Held: The evidence did not show that the injury to the victim was such
that his life was ever in danger and thus, the accused could not be
convicted of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, but only
of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon.

- Sanli Sunggoh: Where the victim was stabbed in the neck, wounded on
the side of the head, throat, left forearm, left hand and right cheek, the
court was satisfied that grievous hurt had been caused.

- Unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days

- Sahat v Hajee Brahim: The fact that the complainant was kept in the
hospital for the period of 20 days was enough proof that he was unable
to follow his ordinary pursuits.

- However, in subsequent cases: Confinement in the hospital does not

raise the presumption that the victim was unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.
- The burden is upon the prosecution to prove the victim’s
inability to follow his ordinary pursuits and that 20 days of
hospitalization was not enough as there may be persons who
are easily capable of following their ordinary pursuits but
choose to remain in the hospital.

- Queen Emperor v Vasta Chela: Consideration must be given to the

nature and severity of the injury as well as to the probability of
disability likely to occasion.
- Yoganathan R: Where the victim was stabbed with a knife and as a
result was unable to continue with his work, which was part of his
ordinary pursuits, for the first 6 weeks after he obtained the injury, the
injury was held to amount to grievous hurt.
- So long as an injury prevents a person from pursuing any of his
ordinary activities during the 20-day period, that injury would
amount to grievous hurt. Similarly, if a person is prevented
from carrying out his ordinary pursuits during that period of
time with the same degree of ease as he did before he was
injured, the necessary requirements would be satisfied.