HEARSAY

A statement made out of court that is offered

in court as evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted.
See the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh;
Subramaniam v PP
-

In this case, the accused was charged

with
unlawful
possession
of
ammunition. His defence was that he
had been captured by terrorists and
was acting under duress.

The trial judge held that the evidence

of his conversation with the terrorists
was inadmissible unless the terrorists
testified. The Privy Council allowed his
appeal.

The hearsay rule was not infringed

because his evidence about what the
terrorists had said to him was not
adduced in order to show that what
the terrorists had said was true but in
order to show that threats had in fact
been made.

What is hearsay evidence?

Ratten v R
The mere fact that evidence of a witness
includes evidence as to words spoken by
another person who is not called is no objection
to its admissibility. Words spoken are facts just
as much as any other action by a human being.
If the speaking of the words is a relevant fact,
a witness may give evidence that they were
spoken. A question of hearsay only arises when
the words spoken are relied on 'testimonially', i
e as establishing some fact narrated by the
words
PP v Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim
-

It follows that a party, who wishes to

have a statement admitted, not in
proof of its truth but to show that it
was made, must also show its
relevancy.

In my opinion, the fact that a

statement was made does not on its
own make it admissible. It must be
shown to be relevant to a fact in issue
as the fact that a statement has been
made may be admissible for many
purposes.
If the purpose is not shown, the court
would be in no position to rule on the
relevancy of the statement with
regard to the facts in issue, and, if it is
not relevant at all, the statement
would amount to hearsay and thereby
become inadmissible.

Hearsay evidence is evidence that is

not direct. Direct evidence is the
testimony of a person who testifies
directly to the court in pursuance of his
own knowledge of a fact or
observation of a fact.
Evidence that is not direct is what a
witness testifies in court about what
he heard from a third party who is not
himself called as a witness. The
evidence of such a witness is
inadmissible to prove the truth of the
fact stated. Hearsay is therefore
properly speaking secondary evidence
of any oral statement.
E.g when witness A says that B told him
about the happening of an event X (B
is not call before the court). As
assertion about event X being not
based on his own observation so he is
not qualified to speak about it. BUT if
the object is only to prove Bs assertion
of the event and NOT TO PROVE THE
TRUTH OF THE EVENT, A then is
competent to speak about it and such
evidence tender may be received if it
has any relevancy in the case.

4 elements must be present for the statement

to fall within the definition of hearsay (if it
does, as a GR = not admissible)
i.
ii.
iii.

iv.

Out of ct assertion
Repeated in ct
The original maker of the
statement is not witness (cannot
be cross-examined)
The purpose of adducing the
assertion is to prove the truth of
content

Rule
Anything to be proved by oral testimony may
be proved only by witnesses through personal
observation of their own senses and not from
what they have been told. The evidence must
therefore be direct in this sense.
In Malaysia, section 60 of Evidence Act 1950
lay down that oral evidence must be direct.
Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be
direct, that is to say:

Distinction between original evidence and

hearsay
-

Not all the ct assertion will fall within

the def of hearsay
Its only hearsay if the statement is
being tendered to prove the truth of
contents
It the out of ct statement is being
tendered for some other purpose
Original evidence/direct evidence
Statements which are being tendered
for:
a) To show knowledge
b) That a statement was made
c) State of emotion/mind
d) Duress
*accepted as OE and not hearsay
(matter of judicial opinion as other
man = other view. Very subjective)

Express & implied assertions

i.

(a) if it refers to a fact which could be seen,

it must be the evidence of a witness who says
he saw it;

Statement tendered to prove

the truth of its direct meaning.
it was X who attacked me
it was a white boy
the get away car no was
PUxxx

(b) if it refers to a fact which could be heard,

it must be the evidence of a witness who says
he heard it;
(c) if it refers to a fact which could be
perceived by any other sense or in any other
manner, it must be the evidence of a witness
who says he perceived it by that sense or in
that manner

Reasons for excluding hearsay evidence:

-

Not given under oath

Maker cannot be tested under cross
examination
To avoid fabrication and concoction
Unreliable (misreporting & inaccuracy)

Express assertion:

ii.

Implied assertions:
Statement is tendered to
prove
the
hidden
meaning/fact
hello X
Impliedly saying: X was there
I saw Ms.X coming out of
Hotel Dunia
*note that hearsay rule will
only
apply to
implied
assertions.

Exceptions to the rule against hearsay

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

a).

s. 32
s. 33
s. 73A
s. 90
res gastae/s. 6
confession/admissions

s.32 of EA
-

are relevant under the following

circumstances: Para (a) to (j)
when will it apply:
Precondition + at least 1 para (a-j)
applies = s. 32 exception

Sim Tiew Bee v PP

-

preconditions:
under s. 32 a statement could only be
admitted as an exception to hearsay
provided it was made by 4 categories
of person:
o the maker is dead
o the maker cant be found
o incapable of giving evidence
o unreasonable delay/expenses

These must be strictly proven

according to A. Paul.
Party wishing to rely on the exception
must explain & provide evidence to
support.
Precondition + para
Burden : s.104
Allied Bank Bhd v Yau Jiok Hua
6 years of claim (old claim more than
1 million)
The witness is in Australia
The parties wanted to argue the
unreasonable delay & expenses
Wanted to use s. 32
Held: the precondition (s. 104) is not
satisfied. The argument was rejected
therefore s. 32 is not applied.

Tendering in the tally sheet, manifest

and gunny sack
And has Sim Tiew Bee, Sibu written
on it
The maker of the tally sheet and
manifest are not in ct
S. 32(b): gunny sack cant be tendered
and not fall within the para (b) not
made in ordinary cause.
Held: para (b), the tally sheet and
manifest satisfied but the precondition
is not satisfied therefore, s. 32 not
applied and rejected.
But under the precondition, the gunny
sack is satisfied.
*to allow the evidence in under s. 32
must prove and satisfied the
preconditions and the s. 32 the
paragraph.
Ng Yik Kwok v PP
Wanted to tender in the receipt of the
payment of the hotel in Bangkok
The maker of the receipt = cashier at
the Bangkok Hotel
The maker refuse to come to the ct
The precondition is satisfied as the
maker of the receipt made it very clear
that he will not come to Malaysia to
testify
Also, the receipt was produced in an
ordinary cause.

s. 32 (1) a
-

when the statement is made by a

person as to the cause of his death, or
as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his
death, in cases in which the cause of
that persons death comes into
question.
Such as statement is relevant whether
the person who made it was or was not

at the time when it was made under

expectation of death, and whatever
may be the nature of the proceeding in
which the cause of his death comes
into question.
a.k.a dying declarations
conditions:
maker is dead
cause of death comes into
issue
statements relates to:
i)
cause of death (after infliction
of injury) *more value
ii)
the transaction which results
in death (before the infliction
of injury)
no need for statement to be made in
expectation of death
can be verbal (exact words based on
recollection) or in writing (actual
words)

in Malaysia, we applies both before and after

the infliction of injury. While CL only applies
after injury = made in expectation of death.

Yeoh Hock Cheng

-

*for the dying declaration, not necessarily for

it to be in writing but its the best (verbal is
sufficient)

the precondition of the dying

declaration is satisfied
admissible even though it is hearsay
very high value

Boota Singh v PP
The statement made 9 months before the
actual death was too remote
Haji Salleh v PP
-

Pakala Narayana Swami v King

Emperor
-

A was charged with murder

The V was found cut into 7 pieces and
was put in a trunk
Prosecution has found the evidence
shows that A bought the trunk and has
brought it to his house.

She was killed on the 14th March

She has made 2 statements before her
death
i)
5th March to her dad saying
that A threaten to kill her if she
tells anyone that she was
sleeping with him
ii)
On the day she died, 14th
March to her sister saying that
shes going to meet A but was
asked by A to disguise as a guy
Held: the 1st statement was too
remote and the 2nd statement can be
admitted as the dying declaration
*the mere proximity, the higher it is
likely that the ct will accept it as dying
declaration

Chandrasekara v R
-

The evidence brought in is the

statement made by the V to his wife
stating that:
V went to As house to collect his debt
The statement made before the injury
can still be considered as dying
declaration

1 month before the death was

threaten by A
The ct held that it is too remote
therefore cannot be accepted
Nembhard v R
Admissible but lower in value
Toh Lai Heng v R/Ong Her Hock v PP

Can either be in verbal or in writing

Examples:
Naranjan Singh v PP
-

Dying declaration to the nurse was in

Mandarin and later it was interpreted
and translated to the PO
Need to call the nurse to testify in ct

(1)

A marked papers and signed it (has the

personal knowledge)

Chan Phuat Khoon v PP

1st hand
Hearsay

Ct has to evaluate the deceased is he a person

worthy of credit
s. 32 (1) b
-

Statement was made in the ordinary

course of business
Eg: the receipt can fall under this
section
Professional duty (write letter every
day) = ordinary course of business
Conditions:
o Statement made in the
ordinary course of business
o By a maker who has personal
knowledge of matter stated
o Only allows 1st hand hearsay
Difference between s. 32(1)b & s. 73A
s. 32 (1) b

s. 73A

A tell B who didnt have the personal

knowledge
2nd hand
Hearsay

B told the students

(2) Dr. X examines Mr. Y and Dr. X prepares the

report. Dr. X has died and now the report is
being tendered by another witness, Dr. Z.
- 1st hand hearsay
Dr X

Both criminal and Civil only

civil
Oral
and Only
documentary
documentary
Only when has Only when has
personal
personal
knowledge
knowledge or not
(record it from
someone else)
1st hand hearsay 1st & 2nd hand
ony
hearsay , OE and
also
hearsay
(wider)
s.32 precondition Hearsay can be
must be satisfied
admitted even if
witness
is
available

Dr. Z

(Has personal Knowledge)

(3) J takes the measurements of the shipment

and reads it to K while K records the details and
signs the document. Both J & K cannot be
found. Document is tendered through L.
J

K
1st hand

L
2nd hand

Sim Tiew Bee v PP

-

s.32 (1) c

The tally sheet, manifest and gunny

sack
Precondition for the gunny sack is
satisfied but not the tally sheet and
manifest
Not in ordinary course of business

Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd v Abdul Rashid

-

Dispute on how much timber has been

extracted
Document prepared by Ps son was
tendered
Ps son dead (precondition satisfied)
Document on the record of how much
timber was extracted
The paragraph is not satisfied as it is
not in ordinary course of business

when the statement is against the

pecuniary or proprietary interest of
the person making it, or when, if true,
it would expose him or would have
exposed him to a criminal prosecution
or to a suit for damages.
Statement against your own interest
(damaging to yourself) is likely to be
true.
Sussex Peerage Case

Ps father was Lord Sussex got married

to Ps mother without the Kings
permission
Both the parent is dead and theres
only 1 child
The child wants to claim the fathers
title therefore he has to prove that he
is the legitimate child to the couple

Wan Salimah v Mahmood Omar

-

When it is necessary for the records to

be made (before or after the dispute
arose)
Ct said doesnt matter
Before dispute is much in weight
Abdul Khoder v Low Yam Chai

PP v Foster
-

Medical report made by doctor (professional

duty) can be admitted
-

Ng Yiu Kwok v PP
Receipt fall under para (b) of s. 32

A facing the charge of drug trafficking

(a german citizen)
Affidavit of the persons who travelled
with him stating that the drugs are not
belonging to him but the other
colleagues.
Statement that will be against the
interest of the maker and open
themselves to criminal proceeding
Admissible
Ward v Pitt

Vaynar Suppiah v KMA Abdul Rahim

st

Ct held s. 32 (1) b will only admit 1 hand

hearsay and no other
Allied Bank Bhd v You Jiok Hua
S. 32 (1) b : only admit 1st hand hearsay
S. 73A : allow both 1st & 2nd hand hearsay
-

The maker has the personal

knowledge of the document/
statement made
The illegitimate child who wants to
claim for the fathers pension after his
death must prove that the father has
the personal knowledge of his
existence
Ct held that only the mother who
actually knows and the father didnt
have the personal knowledge

Tucker v Old Bury UDC

The person making the statement must be
aware that it is against his interest.

Conjunctive

disjunctive

I & j should be read together

marks the

s. 32 (1) h
-

When the statement was made by a

number of persons and expressed
feelings or impressions on their part
relevant to the matter in question
Spontaneous reaction by a group of
people

Du Bost v Beresford
-

beauty & the beast

D is being sued by the painter as D has
destroyed the painting named above.
Of his sister and the husband
Everyone reacted in the same manner
(utter horror)
No need to bring all the people who
saw the painting and only one person
is enough

s. 32 (1) i & j
-

(i) when the statement was made in

the course of, or for the purpose of, an
investigation or inquiry into an offence
under or by virtue of any written law
(j) where the statement was made by
a public officer in the discharge of his
duties
(2) the provision of para (i) & (j) of
subsection (1) shall apply only in
relation to a criminal proceeding
Only applies to criminal cases
More recent addition to EA
Issue: conjunctive/disjunctive reading

end of
section

the

Impact:
Conjunctive
-

Use by the defense

Precondition
When the statement is made in the
course of an investigation
Where it was made by public officer
(both I & j must be satisfied ie only
statements made by a public officer in
the course of any investigation will be
admissible) narrow
Michael Anoyo v PP

Page 177
HC decision: the J reads the para
conjunctively

Disjunctive
-

Use by the prosecution

Precondition
Read it separately
Wider
PP v Mohd Jamil b Yahya

The word and is to put an end and

not to read jointly
Diff approach: evidence admit on
weight
PP v Lam Peng Hoa

The para needs to be disjunctively

PP v Mohd Fairuz
The J in Michael Anoyo is isolated therefore it
is agreed that the judges has made up their
mind that the para (i) & (j) disjunctive

(i)

S. 107, 112, 113

(j)

s. 119, 112

o
o

Ayoromi Helen v PP
-

Lakshamana v Vardhanamma

Was caught with drugs and made 112

statement
Green was dead and can the
statement be admissible
Ct use the disjunctive rule

Kobra Taba Seidali v PP

-

It is essential to note that (i) must be

read conjunctively with (j) and is only
related to public officers and not
witnesses
S. 32(1)(i) & (j) was dealt by Hamid
Sultan JC
The J in COA read the para conjunctive

c)

b)

The doctor who confirmed that the

deceased was dead did not give
evidence as he had left the country
and his report was admitted under s.
32(1)(j) of EA
s. 33
-

allow for evidence by a witness in case

to be admitted in a subsequent
proceeding or at a later stage in the
same proceeding as an exception to
hearsay
element:
o precondition (witness is not
available)
idead
iicant be found
iiiincapable
ivkept away
vunreasonable delay
o the evidence was given in a
judicial proceeding or before
anyone authorised to by law
to take it

apply to both civil & criminal

apply to evidence given by a witness in
a judicial proceedings
apply to evidence given by a witness
before any authorised person

s. 73A

Bandhala Undik v PP
-

same parties
opportunity & right to crossexamine
(in
earlier
proceeding)
same issue

only civil cases

only statement in a document
under this sec a statement would be
admissible in 3 circumstances:
a) where the maker is called as a
witness ( document will be
admitted to show consistency) OE
in s. 73A(1)b
b) where the maker of the statement
is not available
c) where the maker is available but
not called as a witness (s. 73A(2)a)
statement is admitted as an
exception to hearsay
this sec will allow both primary &
secondary copies (s. 73A (1) + (2)b)
statement must be made before the
dispute (s. 73A(3))
Allied Bank Bhd v Yau Jiok Hua

allow 2nd hand hearsay provided it was

in the performance of a duty to record
information supplied to him by a
person who had, or might reasonably
be supposed to have had, personal
knowledge of those matter
s. 73A(1)a(ii)

 H/p logs data (Azilah Hadri v

PP) COA
Witness: Celcom officer who
prepared the scripted logs
data from raw data (computer
print out)

Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank v Chong

On Foh
-

d).

page 190
the maker not available as he is busy
still can be admissible

CA: s. 90A(2) not satisfied as

we noted that it was not the
evidence of SP61 that he was
the person responsible for the
management and operation of
that computer. What he said
was:
pada masa saya mencetak
document ini daripada comp
saya, comp saya tersebut
adalah di dalam berkeadaan
baik dan di dalam perjalanan
fungsinya yang biasa begitu
juga printer untunya

s. 90A
-

use this when dealing with computer

generated evidence
can be admissible as the truth of
content
allowed hearsay evidence
document was produced by a
computer in the course of its ordinary
use
s. 90A (1) & (2):
tendering the doc + signed by the
person (the certificate)
even if the cert is not tendered, its not
fatal as long as the maker is there to
give the oral evidence

FC: in this case, the call logs

were produced by computers
in the course of their ordinary
use by very makers, namely
PW61, 62 & 63 hence
dispensing
with
the
requirements of tendering to
the ct signed cert that they
were responsible for the
management of the operation
of the comp, or for the
conduct of the activities for
which those comp were used
for. The need to adduce the
cert as required by s. 90A(2) of
EA had thus becomes
redundant.

Ganasegaran v PP
Oral evidence by person in charge of
operations was sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of s. 90A(2)

s. 3 : def of document and comp

smartphone would fall within this def
s. 62
in Malaysia, a wide interpretation has
been adopted and has been held to
include the following documents:
bank statement (Ganasegaran
v PP)
computerised bus tickets
(Hanafi Mat Hassan v PP)
DNA results (Ahmad Najib Aris
v PP)
CCTV recordings (Ahmad Najib
Aris v PP)
E-mail print out (PETRONAS v
Khoo Nee Kiong)

*s. 90A should only be applied to things that

doesnt involve human intervention.

e) res gastae
-

Statement which are part of the same

transaction as the fact in issue
Spontaneous statements

Exited utterance rule

Instinctive reaction to the drama
unfolding
Exception to hearsay
Example:
stop thief!!!
get me the police!!!
your house is on fire!!!
Logic: no threat of fabrication or
concoction as its a spontaneous and
instinctive reaction to an event.

with it in time, place and circumstance

that they are part of the thing being
done and not merely a reported
statement.
Thus, the requirement of
contemporaneity, that is the
statement must be made at the
moment of the act, explaining the act
itself, accompanying it as applied in
Bedingfield was thought to be too
strict.
One element which attracts attention
is that while a gap of about 26 minutes
was considered as having broken the
causal link between one fact and the
other.

Ratten v R
CL

s.6

Common Law:

Get me the police few mins bef attack

OE

Implied Assertion( H attack W)

Bedingfield
-

Facts: murder charge. Defence claims

it was a suicide
Vs throat had been cut, she rushed
out of the room and said to her aunt:
see what harry has done to me
Cockburn CJ: its RG only if the
statement
is
made
contemporaneously with the fact in
issue
On facts: not RG as not part of same
transaction. Statement was made
after it was all over.

Teper v R
-

your place burning and you are going

away from the fire
26 mins after the fire started
Lord Norma said: It is essential that
the words sought to be proved ...
should be, if not absolutely
contemporaneous with the action or
event, at least so clearly associated

A was convicted of the murder of his

W by shooting her with a shotgun.
His defence was that the gun had
discharged accidentally while he was
cleaning it.
To rebut that defence, PP called for
the evidence of a telephone operator,
who stated that shortly before the
time of the shooting, she had received
a call from the address where the
deceased lived with her H.
The statement was sufficiently
contemporaneous to be RG
RG test: facts are such that they
exclude
the
possibility
of
concoction/fabrication.

R v Andrews
-

Bedingfield overruled
The court held that since the Vs
statement to the police was made by
the seriously injured man in
circumstances that were spontaneous
and contemporaneous with the
attack,
there was thus no possibility of any
concoction or fabrication of
identification.
A statement made to a witness by the
victim of an attack describing how he
had received his injuries was
admissible in evidence as part of the
res gestae.

among them Yusoff and Krishnan, did

likewise. At 3.45 a.m.
Yusoff and Krishnan were woken up
by the noise of the deceased
shouting, "Matamata (police),
Mohamed has stabbed me." They saw
the deceased a few yards away on the
road, pursuing 3 men who were
running away from the scene.
When they asked him who had
stabbed him, the deceased replied,
"Mohamed stabbed me and Hassan
and Haja Mohideen were with him."
A telephone message was sent to the
Radio Police Patrol and in a few
minutes a Radio Police Van arrived
and a Sergeant began to take down a
statement from the deceased

CL RG apply in Malaysia:
-

In some cases, two facts occurring at

the same time and place may have no
connection between them;
but in other cases, two facts
separated by a vast distance and
place may be parts of the same
transaction.
As stated earlier, it all depends on the
circumstances of each case.
Where the transaction consists of
different acts, in order that the chain
of such acts may constitute the same
transaction, they must be connected
by such factors as
o the proximity of time,
o proximity or unity of place,
o continuity of action,
o community of purpose or
design.

s. 6 & RS as an exception to hearsay:

o
o

Cases suggesting that s. 6 is RG:

Chotka v State AIR
o

o
Mohamed Allapitchay
-

murder case where on the night of

the murder, the deceased went to
sleep at his stall sometime before
midnight; several other stall-holders,

s. 6 seems to reflect the CL

principle of RG
A. Paul suggests that s. 6 is an
exception to hearsay and that it is
the codification of the CL RG
principle
End effect of this approach: any
evidence which falls within s. 6
would fall within RG amd can be
admitted as an exception to
hearsay.

S. 6 of the EA and the succeeding

sections embody the rule of
admission of evidence relating to
what is commonly known as RG.
Acts or declarations
accompanying or explaining the
transaction or the facts in issue
are treated as part of the RG and
admitted as evidence.
They are, roughly speaking,
exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The obvious ground of admission

of such evidence as is referred to
in s. 6 is the spontaneity and
immediacy of the act or
declaration in question.
The facts deposed to must form
part of the transaction. The
requirement is that the statement
sought to be admitted must have
been made contemporaneously
with the act or immediately after
it and not such an interval of time
from it as to allow fabrication or
to reduce the statement to a
mere narrative of past events.

Arguments that s. 6 is not RG as an exception

to hearsay:
Theres a misconception on whats RG at CL
L. Wilberforce in Ratten:
RG can be used in 3 ways:
o

Assaults bef the killing which are part

of the continuous orgy/act (OE:
Hamsa Kunju)
Spoken words which are not admitted
to show truth of contents (OE: PP v
Sam Hong Choy)/Ratten
Hearsay statement by
V/Accused/bystander (Teper)

Which is wider:
o

Page 207
s.6
Kok Ho Leng v PP

o
o
o

a telephone message received on

the premises during a raid under
the Betting Enactment was
admitted as RG under s. 6 of the
Act.
Murray-Aynsley J observed:
But there was one point of some
interest, whether a telephone
message to the premises during
the raid was admissible in
evidence.
Hearsay but admissible
Implied assertion
Page 206

RG

Chin Choys test

(can the possibility of

concoction& distortion be
disregarded)

Hamsa Kunju v R
o

o
Leong Hong Khie v PP
o

Applied the Ratten test in the

context of s. 6 and rejected the
statement.

Andrews Test

An event that occurred in the

morning was held to be part of
the same transaction as another
event that occurred later in the
night.
The whole of this evidence was
admitted by Buttrose J as part of
res gestae.
ct was willing to accept the earlier
incident, which had passed a
whole day before, as part of res
gestae.
The same position may very
possibly be adopted by Malaysian
court as s. 6 is in pari materia with
its Singapore equivalent.

PP v Sam Hong Choy

o

o
o

Where there involved robbery

when the accused grabbed a bag
belonging to a lady. The lady
shouted
Tolong saya, perompak ambil
duit saya.
A bystander heard the called and
gave a chase. He managed to
caught him.
Evidence of the incident was later
given in evidence. It was objected
for being hearsay.
Held: that the statement made by
a bystander was relevant under s.
6.

Tan Geok Kwang v PP

o

Leong Hong Khie v PP

o

o
o

FC rejected: rejected the res

gestae argument on the ground
that the statements were made
over the course of three days.
Seah FJ, delivering the judgment
of the court, said:
No binding authority has been
cited to prove that hearsay
evidence spanned over a period
of several days had been
admitted as part of the res
gestae.

*Though section 6 seems to be broad enough

to include the events that do not occur
contemporaneously, the case of Leong Hong
Khie is proof of the courts reluctance to
extend the time span of evidence forming res
gestae.

Boota Singh v PP
The statement made 9 month bef the death
was too remote

a Chinese ran wounded into a

patch (area) of blukar, and whilst
the party of police were
surrounding the blukar the handgrenade was thrown at them.
The blukar was then surrounded
and searched, and the appellant
alone was found, lying wounded
therein.
No other person was seen to
enter or leave the blukar, and the
appellant in his own evidence
admitted he saw no one else in
that blukar at that time.
There is therefore a direct
connection between the
wounded Chinese who entered
the blukar, the throwing of the
hand-grenade and the arrest of
the wounded appellant in the
blukar.
The evidence relating to the
throwing of the hand-grenade is
therefore admissible under
section 6 of the Evidence
Enactment as part of the res
gestae, because the group of
facts forming this transaction
was so connected that the
exclusion of evidence relating to
the hand-grenade would tend to
render evidence as to other facts
unintelligible
(meaningless/pointless).
Chin Choy v PP

Mathew CJ: The best test which

has been laid down in considering
this matter is contained in Amrita
Lal Hazra v. Emperor where it is
not possible to frame a
comprehensive formula of
universal application to
determine whether two or more
acts constitute the same

o
o
o

transaction; but circumstances

which must bear on the
determination of the question in
an individual case may be easily
indicated:
they are proximity of time,
unity or proximity of place
continuity of action
Community of purpose or design.

Mohd Khayry Ismail v PP

-

Tape recording evidence/CCTV etc

At CL will be admissible based on RG
principle as truth of its contents
although they may be hearsay or
even self-serving statement.
S. 6 of EA and also other secs give
statutory recognition to RG principle
in the widest form and is not
restricted to the CL parameters.
The new amendments such as s. 90A
do not displace CL rules as to
admissibility.
That is to say if the party cannot
admit a doc in consequence of the CL
restriction then he may get the doc
admitted under any of the new
provisions such as s. 90A.