(2956) 1 W.L.R [privy covet. ] * SUBRAMANIAM ‘ 2. APPELLANT; Axo PUBLIC PROSECUTOR .. +. Respoxpewn. OW APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA (coun? oF appear) Buidence—Hearsay—Admissible to show fact that statement was made— Criminal law—Charge of carrying anmunition—Defence of duress— Hearsay evidence wrongly excluded—Implication from exclusion— Federation of Malaya Emergency Regulations, 1951 (as amended by L.N. 363/1-7-52), reg. 4 (1) (b)—Penal Code (Laws of the Federated Malay States, c. 45), 5. 94. Malaya. Privy Couneil—Jurisdiction—Criminal- matter—Hssential principle of justice infringed—Board will not otherwise interfere. Criminal Laiw—Duress—Bvidence of. ‘Tho appellant was found in a wounded condition in the Rengam District in the State of Johore by mombers of the security forces operating against terrorists. He was tried on a charge of being in possession of ammunition contrary to regulation 4 (1) (b) of the Emergency Regulations, 1951, of the Federation of Malaya, and put forward the defence, inter alia, that he had been captured by terrorists and that at all material times he was acting under duress. He sought to give evidence, in describing his capture, of what the terrorists said to him, but the trial judge ruled that evidence of the conversation with the terrorists was not admissible unless they were called. ‘Tho judge said that he could find no evidence of duress, and in the result the appellant was convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to death. On appeal Held, allowing the appeal, that the judge was in error in ruling out peremptorily the evidence of conversation between the torrorists and tho appellant, Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who was not himself called as a witness was not hearsay evidence and was admissible when it was proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made, Statements could have been made to the appellant by the terrorists which, whether true or not, if they had been believed by the appellant, might, within the’ meaning of section 9% of the Penal Code of the Federated Malay States, reasonably have induced in him an apprehension of instant death if ho failed to conform to their wishes. Thus a complete, or substantially complete, version according to the appellant of what was said to him by the terrorists and by him to them had been shut out, That version, if believed, could and might have afforded cogent evidence of duress brought to bear on the appellant, He had not been allowed to give relevant and admissible evidence, and it could not be held with any confidenco that had the excluded evidence, which went to the very root of the defence of duress, been admitted, the result of the trial would probably have been the same, Order of the Suprome Court of the Federation of Malaya (Coart of Appeal) reversed. + Present: Loup Rancuirve, Lorn Tacker, Mr. U. M.D. pe Sruva. Vou 1 a 965 Gt 1958 May is; ily 9.