(3) Non Fatal Offences

(1)

NON-FATAL OFFENCES

ASSAULT 1 ASSAULT 1

The

The parties parties involve involve are are A, A, as as the the accused accused and and B, B, as as the the victim. victim. Then, Then, thethe issue here is whether B can be held liable for assault as defined under Section issue here is whether B can be held liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 352 of the same code for 351 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 352 of the same code for pointed a water pistol to B.

pointed a water pistol to B. LAW PRINCIPLE

LAW PRINCIPLE

Section 351 defines assault as gesture or preparation in conveying the Section 351 defines assault as gesture or preparation in conveying the threat of violence that causes the apprehension that constitute the offence.

threat of violence that causes the apprehension that constitute the offence.

In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see whet

whether her his act his act fallfalls s witwithin hin ththe e meameaning of ning of assassaulault. t. TheThe 2 2 elemelementsents to anto an assault are physical gesture and the intention to cause threat that the victim will assault are physical gesture and the intention to cause threat that the victim will apprehend. The physical gesture need not be an actual force and requires no apprehend. The physical gesture need not be an actual force and requires no contact with the body. In the case of

contact with the body. In the case of Sammy PillaySammy Pillay, the accused was charged, the accused was charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in

for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing pointing a a revolver revolver at at thethe compla

complainant in a inant in a coffee shopcoffee shop. . In this sIn this situatituation, theion, there is an issure is an issue to the effect of e to the effect of liability since

liability since A is a prankster A is a prankster ..

If Section 351 is read literally, it states that an act amounts to assault as If Section 351 is read literally, it states that an act amounts to assault as lo

long ng as as tthehere re is is gegeststurure e or or prprepepararatatioion n anand d no no bobodidily ly cocontntacact. t. ThThenen, , inin Jashanma

Jashanmal l JhamatmalJhamatmal, the court held that when the accused put on his hand, the court held that when the accused put on his hand towards the woman in a menacing manner so as to cause her to apprehend that towards the woman in a menacing manner so as to cause her to apprehend that he

he wawas s ababouout t ususe e crcrimiiminanal l forforcece, , it it wawas s an an asassasaultult. . HoHowewevever, r, ththe e cocoururt’t’ss interpretation was differs in the case of

interpretation was differs in the case of Dato Sri S Samy Vellu v S NadarajahDato Sri S Samy Vellu v S Nadarajah,, the accused went on a meeting and in that meeting he tried to hit the victim. the accused went on a meeting and in that meeting he tried to hit the victim. The court stated

The court stated thatthat whether a certain act amounts to an assault whether a certain act amounts to an assault depends upondepends upon the

the reareasonsonable able appapprehrehensension ion whicwhich h a a persperson on ententertertains ains aboabout ut crimcriminainal l forforcece being imminent

being imminent. If . If there is no there is no presenpresent ability to t ability to use criminal force, there cannotuse criminal force, there cannot be reasonable apprehension.

be reasonable apprehension. APPLICATION

APPLICATION

In applying the law to the situation, there is a physical gesture directed by In applying the law to the situation, there is a physical gesture directed by A to

A to B when B when he pointed the water pistol. If the he pointed the water pistol. If the literaliteral l interpinterpretatretation is ion is applieapplied, Ad, A can be held liable even if there is no intention to either use criminal force or can be held liable even if there is no intention to either use criminal force or make no bodily contact. However, in this case, the court’s interpretation shall make no bodily contact. However, in this case, the court’s interpretation shall apply. A pointing a water pistol does not cause reasonable apprehension to B. apply. A pointing a water pistol does not cause reasonable apprehension to B. CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, A cannot be held liable for assault under Section 351. In conclusion, A cannot be held liable for assault under Section 351.

(2)

ASSAULT 2 ASSAULT 2

The parties in

The parties involve are A, volve are A, the accused and the accused and B, the victim. B, the victim. The issue here The issue here isis whether A can be held liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the whether A can be held liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the Penal Code for rolling up her sleeves and uttered words of threat to B and Penal Code for rolling up her sleeves and uttered words of threat to B and punishable under Section 352 of the same code.

punishable under Section 352 of the same code. LAW PRINCIPLE

LAW PRINCIPLE

In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see whethe

whether r his act falls within the his act falls within the meaning of assaultmeaning of assault. The. The firstfirst element of assaultelement of assault is there must be

is there must be a a physphysical gesture. Theical gesture. The physical gesture physical gesture need not need not be an be an actualactual force and requires no contact with the body

force and requires no contact with the body . In. In Sammy PillaySammy Pillay, the accused was, the accused was charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver at charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver at the complainant in a coffee shop.

the complainant in a coffee shop. Secondl

Secondly, y, ththere ere musmust t intintentention that ion that the victithe victim m wilwill l appapprehrehend. In end. In ththisis si

situtuatatioion, n, ththerere e is is an an isissusuee whwhetether her wowords rds cacan n amamouount nt to to an an asassasaulult t . . ThThee general rule

general rule is that words cannot amount to assault. However, words can colouris that words cannot amount to assault. However, words can colour gestures to indicate intention. In

gestures to indicate intention. In Read v CokerRead v Coker, the plaintiff was fired by the, the plaintiff was fired by the defenda

defendant. nt. Two days laterTwo days later, the plaintif, the plaintiff returned to the premisf returned to the premises owned by thees owned by the defenda

defendant and refusnt and refused to leaveed to leave. . The defenThe defendant gathdant gathered up soered up some of his menme of his men and thr

and threateatened him thaened him that if t if he didnhe didn’t leav’t leave, they woue, they would break his necld break his neck. k. TheThe plaintiff left fearing the men would strike him. The court held that it was an plaintiff left fearing the men would strike him. The court held that it was an assault. Gesture and intent locked the deal. In

assault. Gesture and intent locked the deal. In Illustration (cIllustration (c),), A A takes takes up up aa stick saying to Z “I will give you a beating”.

stick saying to Z “I will give you a beating”. Here, though the words used by AHere, though the words used by A c

coouuld ld iin n nno o ccaasse e aamomouunnt t tto o aan n aassssaauult lt aannd d tthhoouuggh h mmerere e ggeessttuurre e isis unaccompanied by any other circumstances might not amount to an assault, the unaccompanied by any other circumstances might not amount to an assault, the gesture explained by the words amounts may amount to an assault.

gesture explained by the words amounts may amount to an assault. APPLICATION

APPLICATION

In applying the law to the situation, A conducted a mere act of rolling up In applying the law to the situation, A conducted a mere act of rolling up her

her slesleeve eve accaccompaompanied nied by by worwords ds of of assassaultault. . ThuThus, s, eveeventhnthougough h the the thrthreateatss uttered by A may not amounting to assault as in general rule, but her threats uttered by A may not amounting to assault as in general rule, but her threats was accompanied by her gesture by the act of rolling up her sleeve.

was accompanied by her gesture by the act of rolling up her sleeve. CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, A can be held liable for assault under Section 351 and In conclusion, A can be held liable for assault under Section 351 and punishable under 352.

(3)

ASSAULT 3 ASSAULT 3

The

The parties parties involve are involve are A A the the accused accused and and B B the the victim. victim. The The issue issue here here isis whether A can be held liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the whether A can be held liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the Penal Code for pointing a sharpened bamboo stick to B and punishable under Penal Code for pointing a sharpened bamboo stick to B and punishable under Section 352 of the same code.

Section 352 of the same code. LAW PRINCIPLE

LAW PRINCIPLE

In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see whethe

whether r his act falls within the his act falls within the meaning of assaultmeaning of assault. The. The firstfirst element of assaultelement of assault is there must be

is there must be a a physphysical gesture. Theical gesture. The physical gesture physical gesture need not need not be an be an actualactual force and requires no contact with the body

force and requires no contact with the body . In. In Sammy PillaySammy Pillay, the accused was, the accused was charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver at charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver at the complainant in a coffee shop.

the complainant in a coffee shop. Secondly

Secondly, there must intention that the victim will apprehend. In this, there must intention that the victim will apprehend. In this si

situtuatatioion, n, ththerere e is is an an isissusuee whwhetether her wowords rds cacan n amamouount nt to to an an asassasaulult t . . ThThee general rule

general rule is that words cannot amount to assault. However, words can colouris that words cannot amount to assault. However, words can colour gestures to indicate intention. In the case of

gestures to indicate intention. In the case of Tuberville v SavageTuberville v Savage, the accused, the accused had a sword in his hand and uttered

had a sword in his hand and uttered “if it is not assize time, I would take such“if it is not assize time, I would take such language from you

language from you”. The court held that”. The court held that the words negative the intentionthe words negative the intention and therefore no assault. Thus, words can also negative an intention.

and therefore no assault. Thus, words can also negative an intention. APPLICATION

APPLICATION

In applying the law, eventhough A made physical gestures by pointing a In applying the law, eventhough A made physical gestures by pointing a sh

shararpenpened ed babambomboo o ststicick k to to B. B. BuBut, t, he he hahad d ututteterered d wowordrds s ththat at nenegagativtive e hihiss intention to cause apprehension which prevent him from doing the threat which intention to cause apprehension which prevent him from doing the threat which he said that he will execute the threat if B is not his brother.

he said that he will execute the threat if B is not his brother. CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, A cannot be held liable for assault under Section 351. In conclusion, A cannot be held liable for assault under Section 351.

(4)

CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION

The

The parties parties involve involve are are A, A, the the accused accused and and B, B, the the victim. victim. The The issue issue isis whether A can be held liable for criminal intimidation as defined under Section whether A can be held liable for criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 506 of the same code for 503 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 506 of the same code for causing threat to B.

causing threat to B. LAW PRINCIPLE LAW PRINCIPLE

Section 503 defines criminal intimidation as a threat which intent to cause Section 503 defines criminal intimidation as a threat which intent to cause alarm to that person as the means of avoiding the execution of threat.

alarm to that person as the means of avoiding the execution of threat.

In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal intimidation, we In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal intimidation, we must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. There are two must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. There are two (2) elements

(2) elements that must be satisfied.that must be satisfied. Firstly

Firstly, there must be a threat , there must be a threat to cause an injury to persons, reputation orto cause an injury to persons, reputation or property.

property. Section 44Section 44 defines injury asdefines injury as any harm illegally caused to any person,any harm illegally caused to any person, bod

body, y, minmind, d, repreputautatiotion, n, or or proproperperty ty . In the case of . In the case of SinSinnanasasamy my v v PPPP, , tthehe accused threatens to kill the victim with a parang, the court held that there is accused threatens to kill the victim with a parang, the court held that there is su

suffifficicient ent evevidident ent to to susupppporort t a a crcrimiiminanal l inintitimimidadatition on bebecacaususe e ththe e papararang ng isis sufficient to constitute a threat. However it is not essential to have a weapon as sufficient to constitute a threat. However it is not essential to have a weapon as mere would suffice.

mere would suffice. The

The secondsecond element is that there was element is that there was an intention to cause alarm.an intention to cause alarm. TheThe person

person have have to to be be alarmed alarmed by by the the threat threat and and the the accused accused must must have have thethe intention to cause alarm which is to cause a person to do any act which he is not intention to cause alarm which is to cause a person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit any act which that person is legally bound to do so legally bound to do or to omit any act which that person is legally bound to do so . In the case of

. In the case of Lee Yoke Choong v PPLee Yoke Choong v PP, the important requirement to constitute, the important requirement to constitute criminal intimidation is the intention of the maker and the nature of threat, in criminal intimidation is the intention of the maker and the nature of threat, in which it would be enough to conclude that the maker of the threats had the which it would be enough to conclude that the maker of the threats had the intention to cause alarm.

intention to cause alarm. Then,

Then, in in the the case case of of PP v Aziz Bin WeePP v Aziz Bin Wee, the accused had picked up a, the accused had picked up a dangerous weapon and shouted ‘try if you want to get it’ as the staff of Ministry dangerous weapon and shouted ‘try if you want to get it’ as the staff of Ministry of Health was trying to remove the accused good as he has no license to operate of Health was trying to remove the accused good as he has no license to operate a food stall. The court decided that, anyone who had faced with the accused a food stall. The court decided that, anyone who had faced with the accused while holding the knife near to him must have been gravely alarmed. Thus, the while holding the knife near to him must have been gravely alarmed. Thus, the accused was guilty of criminal intimidation.

accused was guilty of criminal intimidation. APPLICATION

APPLICATION

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal intimidation under section In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal intimidation under section 504 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 506 of the same code for 504 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 506 of the same code for causing threat to B.

(5)

CRIMINAL FORCE CRIMINAL FORCE

The

The parties parties involve involve are are A, A, the the accused accused and and B, B, the the victim. victim. The The issue issue isis whether A can be held liable for criminal force as defined under Section 350 of whether A can be held liable for criminal force as defined under Section 350 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 352 of the same code for spittle on the Penal Code and punishable under section 352 of the same code for spittle on B.

B.

LAW PRINCIPLE LAW PRINCIPLE

Section 350 defines criminal force as

Section 350 defines criminal force as if an accused caused motion, changeif an accused caused motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to any substance as to bring it into contact to of motion or cessation of motion to any substance as to bring it into contact to bod

body y as as to to creacreate te feelfeelinging, , by by his own his own bodbodily power, dispoily power, disposinsing g susubstbstancance e or or inducing animals to move

inducing animals to move..

Force is further defined in

Force is further defined in section 349section 349 asas a person is said to use force ona person is said to use force on another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion

another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion..

In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal force, we must In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal force, we must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. The

see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. The first elementfirst element whic

which h is is ththe e actactus us reureus s of of thithis s offoffencence e is that is that the force must be the force must be intintententionaionallylly inflicted, as it is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if force was accidently or inflicted, as it is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if force was accidently or recklessly inflicted or that the offender knew his action was likely to cause force. recklessly inflicted or that the offender knew his action was likely to cause force. In

In Ng Eng Huat v PPNg Eng Huat v PP, there was no direct force but the movement was affected, there was no direct force but the movement was affected when the appellant intentionally reversed his car to collide with the other car. when the appellant intentionally reversed his car to collide with the other car. The court

The court held that the held that the appellant’s act was appellant’s act was an intentional an intentional and deliberate and deliberate act andact and he had used criminal force.

he had used criminal force. The

The second elementsecond element is that the force must be used on is that the force must be used on a persona person. The. The person must be the ultimate object of the force. No offence of criminal force is person must be the ultimate object of the force. No offence of criminal force is committed when the lock of a house is broken or where a ladder is removed committed when the lock of a house is broken or where a ladder is removed leaving the victim stranded on the roof of a house. Its shows that the purpose of leaving the victim stranded on the roof of a house. Its shows that the purpose of doing such acts is to directly affect the person. In the case of

doing such acts is to directly affect the person. In the case of Raja IzzuddinRaja Izzuddin Shah v PP

Shah v PP, the accused was convicted with the offence under section 353 when, the accused was convicted with the offence under section 353 when he had slapped the complainant who was a police officer, dragged him by shirt he had slapped the complainant who was a police officer, dragged him by shirt and pushed him against the wall.

and pushed him against the wall. Then,

Then, thethe third elementthird element of this offence is the force must be without theof this offence is the force must be without the victim’s consent. Where the victim consents to the use of force, there is no victim’s consent. Where the victim consents to the use of force, there is no offence. offence. APPLICATION APPLICATION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

(6)

In conclus

In conclusion, A may ion, A may be held liable for be held liable for criminacriminal force under section 350 of l force under section 350 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 352 of the same code for causing the Penal Code and punishable under section 352 of the same code for causing threat to B.

(7)

CRIMINAL FORCE TO OUTRAGE MODESTY CRIMINAL FORCE TO OUTRAGE MODESTY

The

The parties parties involve involve are are A, A, the the accused accused and and B, B, the the victim. victim. The The issue issue isis whether A can be held liable for criminal force to outrage modesty as defined whether A can be held liable for criminal force to outrage modesty as defined under Section 354 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for under Section 354 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for using force to outrage the modesty of B.

using force to outrage the modesty of B. LAW PRINCIPLE

LAW PRINCIPLE

Section 354 of the Penal Code provides that

Section 354 of the Penal Code provides that whoever assaults or useswhoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that criminal force to any person, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person.

he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person. Force is further defined in

Force is further defined in section 349section 349 asas a person is said to use force ona person is said to use force on another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion

another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion..

In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal force, we must In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal force, we must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. The

see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. The first elementfirst element whic

which h is is ththe e actactus us reureus s of of thithis s offoffencence e is that is that the force must be the force must be intintententionaionallylly inflicted, as it is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if force was accidently or inflicted, as it is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if force was accidently or recklessly inflicted or that the offender knew his action was likely to cause force. recklessly inflicted or that the offender knew his action was likely to cause force. In

In Rajeevan v PP,Rajeevan v PP, the accused was convicted of this offence for slipping his leftthe accused was convicted of this offence for slipping his left hand through the gap between the

hand through the gap between the bus’bus’s window and s window and the victim’the victim’s seat. He s seat. He thenthen pressed the victim’s blouse twice at the left breast region.

pressed the victim’s blouse twice at the left breast region. The

The second elementsecond element is that the force must be used on is that the force must be used on a persona person. The. The person must be the ultimate object of

person must be the ultimate object of the force. In the case of the force. In the case of Tan Beng Chye vTan Beng Chye v PP

PP, the accused had taken the victim to some bushes, removed his short and, the accused had taken the victim to some bushes, removed his short and inner pants. He then made the victim take off her coat and trousers leaving her inner pants. He then made the victim take off her coat and trousers leaving her in knickers

in knickers, which she refuse, which she refused to take off. d to take off. The accuThe accused then arressed then arrested, charted, chargedged and convicted for attempted rape. The appeal court held there was no sufficient and convicted for attempted rape. The appeal court held there was no sufficient evi

evidendence ce in in the act the act to to conconstistituttute e raprape e but his but his attattempt to empt to remoremove ve her knickeher knickersrs was evidence of use of force to outrage her modesty.

was evidence of use of force to outrage her modesty. Then,

Then, thethe third elementthird element of this offence is the force must be without theof this offence is the force must be without the victim’s consent. Where the victim consents to the use of force, there is no victim’s consent. Where the victim consents to the use of force, there is no offence. offence. APPLICATION APPLICATION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal force to outrage modesty In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal force to outrage modesty under sectio

under section 354 n 354 of the of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section forPenal Code and punishable under the same section for causing threat to B.

(8)

HURT HURT

The parties in

The parties involve are A, volve are A, the accused and the accused and B, the victim. B, the victim. The issue here The issue here isis whether A can be held liable for hurt as defined under Section 321 of the Penal whether A can be held liable for hurt as defined under Section 321 of the Penal code for punching B and punishable under Section 323 of the same code.

code for punching B and punishable under Section 323 of the same code. LAW PRINCIPLE

LAW PRINCIPLE Se

Sectction ion 32321 1 dedefinfines es vovoluluntntararily ily cacaususing ing huhurt rt as as an an acact t dodone ne wiwith th ththee intention of causing hurt to another person or with knowledge that he is likely intention of causing hurt to another person or with knowledge that he is likely cause hurt the person and the hurt caused is said to be voluntarily.

cause hurt the person and the hurt caused is said to be voluntarily. Section 319

Section 319 furfurthether r defdefines hurt ines hurt asas person person who who causes causes bodily bodily pain,pain, disease or infirmity to another person

disease or infirmity to another person. Then, infirmity was defined in the case of . Then, infirmity was defined in the case of Anis Beg

Anis Beg as inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may beas inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may be either temporary or permanent.

either temporary or permanent.

In determining whether B can be held liable for causing hurt, we must see In determining whether B can be held liable for causing hurt, we must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. The actus reus of this whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. The actus reus of this offence is causing bodily pain, diseases or infirmity to any person. Then, the offence is causing bodily pain, diseases or infirmity to any person. Then, the mens rea is the intention or knowledge to cause hurt.

mens rea is the intention or knowledge to cause hurt. The

The first first element element needs needs to to be be proved iproved is the s the act mact must be ust be done done voluntarily.voluntarily. Section 39

Section 39 defines volundefines voluntary act as tary act as whenwhen one causes it by means he intendedone causes it by means he intended to do it or at that time, k

to do it or at that time, knew and believe to likely to new and believe to likely to cause it cause it . Then, in the case of . Then, in the case of Jashanma

Jashanmal l JhamatmaJhamatmal l v v BrahmanaBrahmanandnd, it was said that, it was said that there was nothing inthere was nothing in the provision to suggest that hurt should be caused by direct physical contact the provision to suggest that hurt should be caused by direct physical contact between the accused and the victim.

between the accused and the victim.

Secondly, the act must be accompanied with knowledge and intention to Secondly, the act must be accompanied with knowledge and intention to cause and thereby caused hurt. In

cause and thereby caused hurt. In PP v Mahfar bin SairanPP v Mahfar bin Sairan, it was held that, it was held that wh

where ere an an acactition on lalackcked ed intintenentition on or or knknowowleledgdge, e, it it alalso so laclacks ks ththe e esessesentntiaiall element of voluntary. Then, in

element of voluntary. Then, in Manzoor Ahmad v State of AllahabadManzoor Ahmad v State of Allahabad, the, the accused, after an argument with a 15 year old boy, fed him with copper sulphate accused, after an argument with a 15 year old boy, fed him with copper sulphate which led to his collapse and subsequent admission to hospital for a stomach which led to his collapse and subsequent admission to hospital for a stomach wash. The court held that hurt can be either temporary or permanent. So long wash. The court held that hurt can be either temporary or permanent. So long caused infirmity, it is sufficient.

caused infirmity, it is sufficient. APPLICATION

APPLICATION

In the conclusion, A can be held liable for causing hurt towards B under Section In the conclusion, A can be held liable for causing hurt towards B under Section 321 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 323 of the same code.

(9)

GRIEVOUS HURT GRIEVOUS HURT

The parties in

The parties involve are A, volve are A, the accused and the accused and B, the victim. B, the victim. The issue here The issue here isis whether A can be held liable for hurt as defined under Section 322 of the Penal whether A can be held liable for hurt as defined under Section 322 of the Penal code for punching B and punishable under Section 325 of the same code.

code for punching B and punishable under Section 325 of the same code. LAW PRINCIPLE

LAW PRINCIPLE

Section 322 defines voluntarily causing grievous hurt as an act done with Section 322 defines voluntarily causing grievous hurt as an act done with the intention of causing grievous hurt to

the intention of causing grievous hurt to anothanother person or er person or with knowledge thatwith knowledge that he is likely to cause grievous hurt the person and the grievous hurt caused is he is likely to cause grievous hurt the person and the grievous hurt caused is said to be voluntarily.

said to be voluntarily. In determini

In determining whether B ng whether B can be can be held liable for causing grievouheld liable for causing grievous hurt, wes hurt, we must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. In the case of must see whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. In the case of PP v Sng Siew Ngoh, it was provided that for an offence of voluntarily causing PP v Sng Siew Ngoh, it was provided that for an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, it is necessary to

grievous hurt, it is necessary to show:show: 1.

1. The hThe hurt wurt was caas causeused vold voluntuntarilarily;y; 2.

2. The accThe accused intused intended oended or knew he war knew he was likely ts likely to cause go cause grievourievous hurts hurt; and; and 3.

3. The hThe hurt curt causaused waed was gris grievoevous huus hurt.rt. Fo

For r ththee firstfirst elelemeementnt, , ththe e ofoffenfendeder r mumust st vovolunluntatarilrily y cocommimmit t ththe e acactt.. Secondly

Secondly, the accused must intended or knew he was likely to cause to cause, the accused must intended or knew he was likely to cause to cause grievous hurt. In the case of

grievous hurt. In the case of PP v Mahfar bin SairanPP v Mahfar bin Sairan, it was held that where an, it was held that where an act

action ion laclacked ked intintentention ion or or knoknowledwledge, it ge, it alsalso o laclacks ks the the essessentential ial eleelement of ment of voluntary.

voluntary. Then,

Then, lastlylastly hurt becomes grievous hurt when hurt takes one of the formshurt becomes grievous hurt when hurt takes one of the forms stated in section 320 of the Penal Code. [State any of the forms applicable stated in section 320 of the Penal Code. [State any of the forms applicable according to the question].

according to the question]. APPLICATION

APPLICATION

In the conclusion, A can be held liable for causing grievous hurt towards B In the conclusion, A can be held liable for causing grievous hurt towards B under Section 322 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 325 of the under Section 322 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 325 of the same code.