Tee Hock Keong

Tee Hock Keong

P109 (Wulandari's s.112 statement) was inadmissible because prosecution failed to take reasonable and best endeavours to secure her attendance, but the conviction is safe and must stand because independent direct and circumstantial evidence without P109 established motive, placed the appellant holding a knife and last with the victim before collapse, SP17 and SP18 were not accomplices and the appellant's alibi was unsupported.

Citation
B-05(M)-575-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Perayu/appellant: Tee Hock Keong; Respondent/public Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Case Number
B-05(M)-575-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Murder (s.302 Penal Code), Circumstantial Evidence, Admissibility of S.112 CPC Statements Under S.32 Evidence Act 1950, Accomplice Doctrine and Corroboration, Alibi and Burden of Proof, Motive
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Murder (s.302 Penal Code) Circumstantial Evidence Admissibility of S.112 CPC Statements Under S.32 Evidence Act 1950 Accomplice Doctrine and Corroboration Alibi and Burden of Proof Motive

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tee Hock Keong

Perayu/appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/public Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of Wulandari Sugiyat's s.112 CPC statement under s.32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether SP17 and SP18 were accomplices requiring corroboration
  3. 3 Whether conviction was impermissibly based on circumstantial evidence alone

Ratio Decidendi

P109 (Wulandari's s.112 statement) was inadmissible because prosecution failed to take reasonable and best endeavours to secure her attendance, but the conviction is safe and must stand because independent direct and circumstantial evidence without P109 established motive, placed the appellant holding a knife and last with the victim before collapse, SP17 and SP18 were not accomplices and the appellant's alibi was unsupported.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence under s.302 Penal Code affirmed by the Court of Appeal