NUR AFIQAH HANIM BINTI AMRAN (056108)

QUESTION PART A (i)

Murder is the criminal death of a person, especially with malice in mind. While culpable homicide in certain
legal systems, the crime of killing someone or causing their death, although not intentionally, is considered a
capital offence. Murder stated in Penal Code under Section 300 that is “unless otherwise specified, culpable
homicide is murder if the act that causes the death is done with the intent of causing death, if it is done with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows will likely result in the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and if it is done
with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person.” In Section 300 of PC highlighted that culpable
homicide when accomplished in an attempt to cause bodillogy to any individual and for the goal of causing any
person's bodillogy, the death of the person for whom the injury is done is likely to occur.will change to murder if
While culpable homicide is mentioned under Section 299 Penal Code “culpable murder is described as
causing death by doing something that can cause death or physical injury, or by knowing that something like
that could cause death.” Section 299 in PC describes culpable homicide causing death by doing anything that
has the potential to cause death or physical harm, or by knowing that anything like that has the potential to
cause death.

In actus reus if the act that causes the death is done, that person is guilty of culpable homicide. Subject to
certain exclusions, responsible homicide is murder if the act that results in death is committed as the actus
reus. With the goal of causing death and bodily harm that is likely to result in death, In order to lead to death in
mens rea. In order to cause body loss as the offender knows, the person to whom the harm is made is likely to
die as well as to cause body damage to any person and the targeted injury will be adequate in the normal
course to lead to death. For the punishment those who commit homicide are punished with death. Where the
death-causing act is done to kill (culpable homicide), or to cause body injury, which is likely to lead to death, a
person committing guilty murder not worthy of killing shall be fined for a term of imprisonment of 30 years as
well as a fine, if the act by which death occurs is to cause death or cause death. State v Mirza Hidayatullah
AIR1 The accused was charged under Section 304 PC court decided it is culpable homicide since he lacks
knowledge and intention. Yasir bin Esah v Pendakwa Raya2 [2019] MLJU 21 where the court rejected his
appeal to reduce the sentence from Section 302 PC to Section 304 PC since the accused has intention to do
so and is aware of the consequences of his action. Thus, murder is higher degree criminal level compared to
culpable homicide.

1
[1979] SC 1525
2
[2019] MLJU 21
 NUR AFIQAH HANIM BINTI AMRAN (056108)

QUESTION PART A(ii)

Hurt feeling pain or injuring or making someone discomfort in a portion of your body while grievously hurt any
injury that puts the sufferer's life in jeopardy or renders him unable to engage in his normal activities for a long
period.

In Section 319 of PC hurt is defined as somebody who causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to another
person. Basically, to cause hurt is to make someone get injured minorly and not put someone in serious
condition. While emasculation, permanent loss of sight in either eye, permanent loss of hearing in either ear,
privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint,
permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone, and any other harm that puts
one's life in jeopardy are all considered "grievous" as defined in Section 320 of PC. Causing grievous hurt is
to make someone drastically change from a healthy state to incapable state for a long period of time that make
the person cannot live like a normal person in some times and it is a serious crime since i tmake ccause
someone to death.

Section 321 of PC explains about voluntarily causing hurt, anyone who does something with the aim of
hurting someone else, or with the knowledge that he is likely to injure someone else, and then hurts someone
else, is said to have "voluntarily caused hurt." In section 322 of PC explain about voluntarily grievous hurt
whoever causes serious injury voluntarily, if the harm he means to inflict or knows he is likely to do is grievous
hurt, and if the harm he causes is severe hurt, is said to have "voluntarily causing grievous hurt."

Punishment for causing hurt is written in Section 323 of PC except in the cases specified in section 334,
anybody who knowingly causes harm to another person is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, a
fine of up to two thousand ringgit, or both. Dennis Ong Chin Kiat v Public Prosecutor3 The accused was
found guilty for causing hurt to his wife intentionally and was charged under Section 323 of PC. For grievous
hurt causing its lay down in Section 325 of PC Except as allowed in section 335, anybody who causes grave
harm voluntarily faces a sentence of imprisonment of up to seven years, as well as a fine. Public Prosecutor
v NMF4 The accused was charged under Section 325 of PC since he grievously hurt his spouse because they
were in a quarrel at that time and lost his temper.

3
[2017] MLJU 1770
4
[2018] MLJU 1115
 NUR AFIQAH HANIM BINTI AMRAN (056108)

QUESTION PART B
FIRST ISSUE

Whether Razin’s act can be considered theft since he stole Hassan money?

Under Section 378 of Penal Code connotes that “anybody who, without agreement of that person, wishes to
dishonestly remove any moving property from the hands of anyone without his agreement, shall commit theft
for the purposes of such transfers.” Theft is frequently defined as the unauthorised collection of property by
another person in order to permanently remove it. There are two important parts inside this definition: taking
property from another person and the necessary intention to permanently deprive the victim of the property. A
theft element normally requires the seizure of property belonging to another and may also involve the removal
or the removal of the property. However, in cases relating to stealing, the factor of purpose often involves the
majority of challenging legal difficulties. Section 379 of PC clearly mentioned anyone who commits theft shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or for fines or both and shall be punished by
imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence and also be subject to fining or whipping. Dishonest aims to
take ownership of theft elements like property must be moving property, property must be removed from the
other person's possession without the agreement of any person.In order to take someone's property
dishonestly, he must have knowledge that the property does not belong to him, as well as the intention to take
someone's property dishonestly, which must be present at the moment the property is moved. In mens rea
element that can be defined as dishonestly as connotes in Shamsuddion bin Shaik Jamaludin v Kenwood
Electronics Tech Sdn Bhd5 where, the word 'dishonestly' is not defined in Section 378 of PC, but it is
defined in Section 24 of the PC. "Say it dishonestly to everyone who does anything to make one person
untrue gains or misbegotten losses, whether this behaviour causes real inaccurate losses or gains." Since
moveable property is meant to comprise corporeal property of all kinds, save land and items fixed to the earth
or permanently fixed to anything attached to the earth, as stated in Section 22 of Penal Code, property must
be portable. The property must be removed from the possession of another person, and possession must be
proven rather than ownership. A person can submit a theft complaint even though he is not the owner of the
property, because possession is not specified in the Penal Code. in Pyare Lal Bhargava AIR6 to conduct theft,
one does not need to remove transportable property from the custody of another with the goal of not returning
it to him. It would meet the criterion if he seized another person's transportable property with the intention of
returning it later. Next, without the consent of another person, because consent can be expressed or implied
by sound minds acting on their own free will without the use of external pressures such as extortion, coercion,
or pressure. It might be issued by the property owner or a person with authority. Mehra v State AIR7 where
theft is defined as the act of removing a person's property from his possession without his consent. Theft might

5
[1999] 3 MLJ 438 (HC)
6
1963 SC 1094; [1963] 2 Cri LJ 178 (SC)
7
1957 SC 369
 NUR AFIQAH HANIM BINTI AMRAN (056108)

be understood to be certain movements made by property under the same act which creates the severance.
The person who moves an animal in every way, as well as anything moved by the animal as a result of that
motion, is said to move that animal. Like in the case, Manikant Yadav8 where the victim’s buffaloes was stolen
by the accused but he was free from any liability since he took it by mistake but if he took it intentionally thus it
is considered as theft.

Applying to this situation Razin fulfilled aloof the elements of theft because he is intended to steal Hassan’s
money when Hassan is not there therefore no consent is given to him to take the money. If Razin just wants to
borrow money from Hassan he should talk to Hassan first and it shows that Razin is a dishonest person since
he did not do so. The money is Hassan’s belongings because Razin took it from Hassan’s purse and money is
a property because it is valuable and this kind of property is a moveable property. Razin took away Hassan’s
money which means the money was moved from Hassan’s purse to his pocket permanently.

From the evidence given above it is crystal clear that Razin’s act is considered as theft which is a crime and
wrongful act as defined by our Penal Code Act 574 because he stole Hassan’s money and may be punishable
under Section 379 of Penal Code.

8
(1980) 27 BLJR 159
 NUR AFIQAH HANIM BINTI AMRAN (056108)

SECOND ISSUE
Whether Razin’s act for stealing food fulfilled the elements of theft and may be charged under Section 379 of
PC?

Under Section 378 of Penal Code mentioned that “Anyone who wants to dishonestly remove, without the
consent of that person, any movable possessions from the hands of someone, for the sake of such transfers
shall commit larceny.” Unauthorized property collection by another person in order to permanently remove it is
frequently referred to as theft. There are two important aspects to this definition: taking property from another
person and the goal of permanently depriving the victim of the property. Theft usually comprises the seizing
and removal of property that belongs to someone else. Anyone who commits theft shall be penalised by
imprisonment for a term of seven years, fines, or both, and shall be punished by imprisonment for a second or
subsequent offence, as well as fining or whipping, according to Section 379 of the PC. There are some
elements that need to be fulfilled like the unequivocal purpose is to claim ownership of the theft parts., property
must be transportable and cannot be removed without the approval of that person from the custody of another
person, If he or she is to take people's property dishonestly, and he should be conscious that it is not his own,
as well as the intention of stealing people's property dishonestly. Like in the case of Lim Soo Gong& Ors v
PP9 but he is not guilty because he did not have any bad intention. It was a mistake of fact thus he needed to
return it back to the owner. As the movable property includes all sorts of bodily property, except for earth-fixed
or permanently fixed property and objects, as set out in section 22 of the Penal Code, property must be
portable. The property must be moving property. The property must be taken away from another person's
ownership and possession must be demonstrated rather than owned. A person may file a robbery, although he
or she is not the owner, because the property is not included in the penal code. In Raja Mohamed v PP 10 It is
enough if a person who has formed such a dishonest purpose takes this property into such a possession and if
he does not need to move the property out of another person's possession. Then, Without the consent of
another person, sound minds functioning freely without external forces, such as extortion, coercion or
pressurisation, can express or imply the consent of a person. It could be granted by the owner or by an
authorised person. In PP v Ramaiah11 where the accused did not get any consent from the owner thus it is
considered a theft property.Theft could be defined as a series of actions carried out by property as part of a
single act and that results in disqualification which is the property needing to have some move to be said as
stolen. An animal is said to move in any and all ways that the animal moves as a result of its motion. In Talha
& Ors v PP12 where the court decided to claim a property as stolen it has to be moveable property and land
not included in definition of moveable property under Penal Code.

9
[1939] MLJ 10
10
[1963] MLJ 339
11
[1959] MLJ 204
12
[1971] 2 MLJ 167 (AcrJ)
 NUR AFIQAH HANIM BINTI AMRAN (056108)

To apply, Razin fulfilled all the essential elements for theft since he already has the element of mens rea and
bad intention to get free food by stealing it. He knows he may not have enough money to buy food but he can
ask the owner of the stall to pay later or ask for any discount. It is clear he is dishonest from the start. Even
food might not count as a valuable and precious thing but it is in one of the categories as property since it is
moveable and by taking it away Razin already makes the property move from its place. Clearly he did not have
any consent from the seller and took it from the possession of the owner and made it his belongings.

To conclude, Razin is guilty for his action for stealing food from the Restaurant and fulfilling the essential
elements for theft and may be punished under Section 379 of PC.