DEFENCES

(DALIHAN)
 mistake of fact

unsoundness
of mind

1. Excusable Intoxication

Accident

infancy
DEFENCES

consent

duress
2. Justifiable
necessity

private defence
 KHILAF
(MISTAKE)
 MISTAKE

Mistake of Fact Mistake of Law

MISTAKE OF LAW
 WHAT IS MISTAKE OF LAW?

 Silap faham tentang kewujudan atau ketidakwujudan undang-undang.

 Silap faham terhadap tafsiran undang-undang.

 The King v Tustipada Mandal & Ors (1951) AIR Orissa, Patna 284, 289.

“Mistake of law ordinarily means mistake as to the existence or otherwise

of any law on a relevant subject as well as mistake as to what the law is.”
 CAN A MISTAKE OF LAW
BE RAISED AS A DEFENCE?

 Secara amnya, tidak boleh.

 ignorantia juris non excusat atau alasan tidak tahu undang-

undang bukanlah satu pembelaan.

 Kejahilan undang-undang bukan suatu alasan atau pembelaan.

 RELEVANT PROVISIONS

 Section 76 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or

who, by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law,
in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

 Section 79 – Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is

justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of
a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in
doing it.
MISTAKE OF FACT
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS

 Section 76 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or

who, by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law,
in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

 Section 79 – Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is

justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of
a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in
doing it.
 Sulong bin Naim v. PP
(1947)13 MLJ 138
 Mistake as this term is understood in jurisprudence, is used in the sense of
misconception or error of judgement not intended to produce the result
attained.

 If a person is deliberately carrying arms to the police station there is no

mistake as that term is used in jurisprudence. He knows what he is carrying
and he is intentionally carrying those arms. Accordingly, he cannot claim the
protection of either section 76 or section 79 of the Penal Code (Willan C.J).
 Conditions to Raise
Defence of Mistake

 The fact or situation that believed by the accused is in the good faith.

 The mistake happen is reasonable,

 The mistake is solely related to mistake of facts and not mistake of law.
 Chirangi v State of Nagpur (1952)

 Tertuduh telah menyebabkan kematian anak lelakinya sendiri yang disangkakannya seekor
harimau.
 Tertuduh bukan gila atau tidak sempurna akal dan tidak timbul isu pembunuhan oleh sebab
gila atau tidak sempurna akal.
 Tertuduh membunuh mangsa kerana apa yang dia nampak tatkala kejadian itu ialah seekor
harimau.
 Dia percaya tindakan membunuh harimau yang sedang cuba menyerangnya bukan suatu
kesalahan dan percaya perbuatan itu diluluskan oleh undang-undang. Tertuduh
kemudiannya mendapati bahawa apa yang telah dibunuh sebenarnya adalah anak lelakinya
sendiri.
 Bonda Kui v Emperor

 Tertuduh telah menyebabkan kematian isteri abang suaminya (biras) akibat

salah sangka.
 Tertuduh percaya perempuan itu bukanlah manusia sebaliknya adalah suatu
makhluk yang menakutkan atau “hantu” yang cuba mengganggunya.
 Dia percaya tindakannya membunuh “makhluk” yang disangkanya hantu
itu diluluskan oleh undang-undang.
 Oleh hal yang demikian, menurut pendapatnya dan apa yang dipercayainya,
membunuh hantu bukan suatu jenayah.
 Judicial Acts
– section 77 & section 78
 Section 77 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the
exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by
law.

 Section 78 – Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the

judgment or order of a Court, if done while such judgment or order remains in force, is an
offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or
order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such
jurisdiction.
PERBUATAN TIDAK SENGAJA
(ACCIDENT)
 APAKAH MAKSUD ACCIDENT?

 Perbuatan tidak sengaja merujuk sesuatu kejadian yang berlaku dengan

tidak sengaja (accidental).
 Tiada takrifan dlm Kanun Keseksaan.
 Berlaku kerana malang (misadventure/misfortune)
 Tidak boleh ada “human fault.”
 Sesuatu yang berlaku “out of ordinary course of things.”
 Suratan takdir semata-mata, tiada siapa patut yang disalahkan (Act of
God).
 APAKAH MAKSUD ACCIDENT?

 Sesuatu yang berlaku di luar daripada kebiasaan.

 Tidak bernasib baik.
 Ia berlaku di luar dugaan atau jangkaan seseorang.
 Tertuduh sebenarnya tidak berniat dan tidak pralihat akibat
perbuatannya dan orang biasa juga secara munasabahnya tidak dapat
pralihat akibat perbuatan tersebut.
 suatu perbuatan di luar kebiasaan dan tanpa pengetahuan dan dugaan
seseorang.
 SECTION 80

 “Nothing is an offence which is done by accident

or misfortune, and without any criminal intention
or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a
lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper
care and caution.”
 Maksud Perbuatan Tidak Sengaja

 Perbuatan yang dikatakan tidak sengaja

dilakukan itu ialah perbuatan yang dibenarkan
oleh undang-undang, bukan perbuatan yang
dilarang atau ditegah oleh undang-undang.
 ELEMEN-ELEMEN SEKSYEN 80

1. The act committed must be an accident or misfortune.

Case law: State v Rangaswamy (1952)

2. Such act must not be committed with criminal intention or knowledge.

Case law: Tunda v State (1950)

3. The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in a lawful manner and by a
lawful means.
Case laws: Jageshwar v Emperor (1924); Shakhir Khan v Crown (1931)

4. The act committed must have been done with proper care and caution.
Case law: Shankar Bhadolkar v State of Maharashtra (2004)
 La Ode Ardi Rasila v
Public Prosecutor [2016] 1 MLJ 358
 Perayu, seorang warganegara Indonesia yang bekerja sebagai
pengawal keselamatan bantuan di cawangan AmBank USJ Subang
Jaya (‘bank’) telah melepaskan satu tembakan senapang pam yang
dibawanya, yang telah menyebabkan kematian Norazita bt Abu Talib
(‘si mati’), seorang pegawai tunai di bank.

 Pembelaan perayu ialah pembelaan kemalangan atau nasib malang di

bawah seksyen 80 Kanun Keseksaan.
 La Ode Ardi Rasila v
Public Prosecutor [2016] 1 MLJ 358
 Untuk membela dirinya dengan manfaat pembelaan kemalangan atau musibah
di bawah s 80 Kanun, perayu perlu menunjukkan bahawa dia telah melakukan
satu tindakan yang sah dengan cara yang sah, dengan tujuan yang sah, dan
dengan penjagaan yang betul dan berhati-hati di masa kemalangan.
 Dalam kes ini, tiada kemalangan tentang tembakan kerana ia jelas satu
tindakan yang disengajakan kerana perayu telah menetapkan tuil keselamatan
senapang ke kedudukan ‘fire’ sebelum dia melakukan rompakan itu.
 Berdasarkan keterangan pakar bahawa senapang itu hanya boleh ditembak
dengan menarik picu, kegagalan mekanikal boleh ditolak.
 Tunda v. Rex AIR 1950 All 95

 Two friends fond of wrestling participated in a wrestling match and one

of them suffered injury which resulted in death of the other. The other
person was charged under section 304 A IPC.

 The High Court held that when both agreed to wrestle with each other,
there was an implied consent on the part of each to suffer accidental
injuries. In the absence of any proof of foul play, it was held that the act
was accidental and unintentional.
KEPERLUAN
(NECESSITY)
 SECTION 81

 Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done

with the knowledge that is likely to cause harm, if it be
done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in
good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other
harm to person or property.
 Defence of Necessity

 An act of accused in order to prevent greater harm without any criminal intention falls under
the ambit of necessity.

 Such act must be done in good faith in order to prevent the happening of great harm.

 The question of motive is of no importance, where positive evidence does exist in the favor of
accused.
 When defence of necessity can be
applied?

 Defence of necessity applied, when a person in order to prevent a

greater harm from taking place, commits a crime or a criminal act
during an emergency situation, wherein accused can escape
criminal liability because his/her act was justified as he/she had the
intention to prevent a situation which would cause a greater harm
as compared to the criminal act committed by him or her.
 R v. Dudley and Stephens
(1884) 14 QBD 273 DC

 In this case three adults and one minor were cast adrift in a ship following a shipwreck
without food and water. Their food ran out 7 days before the storm and they had no water for
5 days. Dudley suggested to sacrifice the minor boy as he was too weak to which Brook
refused.

 On the 20th day Dudley and Stephens without the consent of Brooks killed the boy as he was
close to death and had no family. All three fed on the boy and were rescued four days later.

 In this case defence of necessity was not held valid and they were convicted for murder.
 Elements of Necessity

 Reasonable test of necessity – reasonable man test

 Principle of good faith – section 52: Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which
is done or believed without due care and attention

 Principle of no other alternative - This section allows the doing of lesser evil to prevent
greater evil either to a person or property. In situations where necessity forces a person to do
some illegal act, a person can use the defence of section 81 because no one can be guilty of a
crime without the will and intention of the mind.
 SEKIAN,
TERIMA KASIH.