lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE II
LAD 5073

ASSIGNMENT 1 (PREPARE CHARGE SHEET)

5TH YEAR, SEMESTER 1 2023/2024

PREPARED FOR:
DR. NOORFAJRI ISMAIL

TLB5/KLB2

PREPARED BY:
MUHAMMAD ARIF HAIQAL BIN ZABIDI (1192084)
NUR SHAHIRA NATASHA BINTI ROSLAN (1192091)
NUR ELLYANA RAIHANI BINTI ZAIHAN (1192090)
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA

(ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS OF MALAYSIA)
45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4,
62100 PUTRJAYA. TEL: 03-62017003
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA. FAKS: 03-27329474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY

CASE NO: 83-764-2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AIDI MAS BIN AHMAD DIN (No: 710419-03-5599)

BORHAN AJAK BIN ABU (No: 761208-06-1423)

CHICKO DIN BIN RAHMAN (No: 800211-14-8765)

FIRST CHARGE

That you, Aidi Mas Bin Ahmad Din (NRIC: 710419-03-5599), Borhan Ajak Bin Abu (NRIC:
761208-06-1423), and Chicko Din Bin Rahman (NRIC: 800211-14-8765) on 12 April 2022, at
about 1600, at No.03, Jalan Desa Impian, Taman Indah, Cheras, in the Federal Territory of
Kuala Lumpur, with the intention to murder, is found to have caused death to Tom Rizo (NRIC:
780103-14-2083). The three of you have thereby committed an offence of murder punishable
under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

PUNISHMENT

If found guilty, shall be punished with death.

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

Dated on 10TH July 2022

By authority of the Public Prosecutor

yusof anuar
YUSOF ANUAR BIN FAUZI

Deputy Public Prosecutor

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JUSTIFICATION

To justify the above charge, according to Section 22(1)(a) of the Courts Judicature
Act 1964, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur has jurisdiction to hear the case, as it can try all
offences committed in the local jurisdiction. The court was chosen based on Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows it to investigate or try cases in uncertain local
jurisdictions, where an offense is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
where an offense continues in multiple local areas. In the present case, several offenses have
been committed in multiple places that fall under this section, hence any High Court in the
local regions where the offenses were committed, whether in Kuala Lumpur, Pahang,
Melaka, or Selangor, may hear the case.

Besides, Sections 152 to 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code outline the
requirements for prosecutions to frame charges. Section 152 (1) of the Criminal Procedure
Code mandates that charges must state the offense the accused is charged with, while Section
152(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires charges to accurately and precisely state
the offense with the specific name provided in the act. By looking at the charge sheet above,
it has clearly stated the offence of the accused which is offence of murder under Section 302
of the Penal Code and description of the offence which they committed murder that caused
the death of Tom Rizo.

Furthermore, under Section 152(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the

prosecution must ensure that the legislation and the relevant provision in which the alleged
offense was committed are included in the charge. In this case, the charge sheet above
clearly states the relevant provision, which is Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder.

On top of that, Murder is defined and penalized under Section 302 of the Penal
Code as the act of knowingly causing the death of another person. In legal terms, it involves
the unlawful killing of a human being with intent. To establish the accused's culpability for
murder, Section 300 of the Penal Code is applied because it outlines the essential
components or elements required to prove a murder charge.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

In Public Prosecutor v Abdul Razak bin Dalek, the accused was charged with
murdering his wife by stabbing and slitting her throat, causing a neck wound and carotid artery
damage. The court ruled that the act of murder required the death of the deceased, the death
caused by the accused's act, and the intention to commit the act, as per Section 300 of the Penal
Code. Also, in the case of Mohd Asmadi bin Yusof v Public Prosecutor, the accused was
charged with murder after hitting the victim with a brick, causing him to fall. To succeed, the
prosecution must prove three elements which are the victim's death, the accused's act or
consequences causing the death, and the act falling under Section 300 (a) to (d) of the Penal
Code. The prosecutor must prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying to this case, the death of the victim is the first element in a murder case, as
proved by the discovery of Tom Rizo's dead body in Sungai Klebang. The accused's actions
and intentions to cause harm are also considered, as they were with Tom Rizo, suggesting a
possible cover-up of their involvement in a kidnapping and robbery. This suggests a motive
for the murder. Therefore, the discovery of Tom Rizo's lifeless body in Sungai Klebang, as
well as the Accused's involvement in the criminal acts of abducting and unlawfully
restraining Tom Rizo before the murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of the Penal
Code, proves the charge that the three Accused are liable for Tom Rizo's death under Section
300 of the Penal Code.

Other than that, Section 170(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states if more than
one person is accused of committing the same offence or several offences in the same
transaction, or if one person is accused of committing an offence and another of aidingin or
attempting to commit the same offence, they may be charged and tried jointly or separately,
depending on what the court deems appropriate. For instance, A and B are accused of the same
murder. A and B may be charged and tried together for the murder as stated under Section
170(1) illustration (a). Therefore, all three Accused can be charged jointly since they were all
involved in the same murder case that took place at the same time.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA

(ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS OF MALAYSIA)
45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4,
62100 PUTRJAYA. TEL: 03-62017003
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA. FAKS: 03-27329474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY

CASE NO: 99-421-2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AIDI MAS BIN AHMAD DIN (No: 710419-03-5599)

BORHAN AJAK BIN ABU (No: 761208-06-1423)

CHICKO DIN BIN RAHMAN (No: 800211-14-8765)

SECOND CHARGE

That you, Aidi Mas Bin Ahmad Din (NRIC: 710419-03-5599), Borhan Ajak Bin Abu (NRIC:
761208-06-1423), and Chicko Din Bin Rahman (NRIC: 800211-14-8765) on 12 April 2022, at
about 1430 near to an office at Jalan W.S Lee, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, jointly
abducted a married couple, Tom Rico (NRIC: 780103-14-2083) and Jessica Rodges (NRIC:
830710-01-1234) and wrongfully confines them in a house at Jalan Senang, Kuantan, in the
state of Pahang. The three of you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section
365 of the Penal Code.

PUNISHMENT

If found guilty, shall be punished imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

Dated on 10TH July 2022

By authority of the Public Prosecutor

yusof anuar
YUSOF ANUAR BIN FAUZI

Deputy Public Prosecutor

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JUSTIFICATION

To justify the above charge, Abduction is defined in Section 362 of the Penal Code
as forcing or deceiving a person to leave a location. According to Section 365 of the Penal
Code, abducting someone and wrongfully confining them in a place is a crime punishable by
imprisonment and a fine which means anyone who kidnaps or abducts someone with the
intention of secretly and wrongfully confined them will be punished with imprisonment for
up to seven years and a fine.

In Public Prosecutor v Arun a/l Ramalingam & Ors, the accused by force, drag
the victim into the car and brought the victim to another house and confined the victim at the
house. The court held that the accused were liable under section 365 of Penal code. Also, in
the case of Public Prosecutor v. Shatisruben Ithayakumar & Ors, the victim was
abducted, confined to a room, and later released after a ransom was paid. She was later taken
by car, and the court ruled that abduction occurred as she was taken from her house to another
kawasan Perumahan.

Applying to this case, Tom Rizo and Jessica Rodgers were taken without their consent
from their office in Kuala Lumpur to a house in Jalan Senang, Kuantan, Pahang, and
wrongfully confined there, proving their liability for abducting and committing the offense
of wrongfully confinement under Section 362 of the Penal Code and Section 365 of the
Penal Code.

On Top of that, Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for joint
charges under the same trial or separately if multiple individuals commit the same offense
under the same transaction or when one person is charged for abetment or attempt of
committing the same offense. In this case, Aidi Mas, Borhan Ajak, and Chicko Din
committed the same offense by abducting Tom Rizo and Jessica Rodgers by force at their
office in Kuala Lumpur. Thus, they should be charged and trialed under section 365 of the
Penal Code.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA

(ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS OF MALAYSIA)
45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4,
62100 PUTRJAYA. TEL: 03-62017003
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA. FAKS: 03-27329474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY

CASE NO: 79-231-2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

1. AIDI MAS BIN AHMAD DIN (No: 710419-03-5599)

2. BORHAN AJAK BIN ABU (No: 761208-06-1423)

3. CHICKO DIN BIN RAHMAN (No: 800211-14-8765)

THIRD CHARGE
That you, Aidi Mas bin Ahmad Din (NRIC: 710419-03-5599) and Chicko Din Bin Rahman (NRIC:
800211-14-8765) at the certain dates had commit robbery to the house that belongs to Tom Rizo
(NRIC: 780103-14-2083) and Jessica Rodges (NRIC: 830710-01-1234) by using armed weapons.
The three of you may be punishable under the offences of section 397 of Penal Code.

PUNISHMENT
If found guilty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years,
and shall also be liable to whipping.

Dated on 10TH July 2022

By authority of the Public Prosecutor

yusof anuar
YUSOF ANUAR BIN FAUZI

Deputy Public Prosecutor

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JUSTIFICATION

To justify the above charges, the definition of robbery can be defined as stated under
section 390(2) of the Penal Code theft is “robbery”, if, in order to commit theft, or in committing
the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the
offender, for that end, voluntarily. According to section 392 of the Penal Code whoever commits
robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to *fourteen years, and
he shall also be liable to fine or to whipping. According to section 397 of the Penal Code,If at
the time of committing or attempting to commit robbery, the offender is armed with or uses any
deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt
to any person, such offender shall be liable to be whipped, in addition to any other punishment to
which he may be liable under any other section of this Code.

In Habsan & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2013] 8 MLJ 310, The appellants were charged
under s 395 of the Penal Code for the offence of gang robbery unto the vessel MT Front Queen
which was committed in Malaysian waters at about 3.2 nautical miles from Pulau Mungging, Kota
Tinggi, Johor. The appellants pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to 12 months imprisonment
from the date of arrest with three strokes of the rattan. The appellants appealed against the
sentence. however, the Court had dismissed the appeal.

Applying to this case, from the above provisions stated such under section 390(2) of the
Penal Code, whoever had committed that action of carrying and attempting away the property
could be considered to commit robbery under this section. The action of robbery shall be
punished under section 392 of the Penal Code which imprisonment for the period that may extend
for fourteen years, fine or whipping. However, section 397 of the Penal Code could be applied
with the current case due to armed robbery committed by Aidi Mas and Chiko Din to enter into
Tom Rizo’s house with the intention of commit robbery by using the weapon provided Borhan
Ajak. Moreover, according to the case Habsan & Ors v Public Prosecutor, the appellants were
charged under section 395 under the offence of gang robbery which the court had dismissed their
appeals. Thus, Aidi Mas and Chiko Din could be charged under section 392 for committing
robbery, section 395 for gang committing gang robbery and under section 397 for committing
armed robbery by using weapons.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA

(ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS OF MALAYSIA)
45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4,
62100 PUTRJAYA. TEL: 03-62017003
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA. FAKS: 03-27329474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY

CASE NO: 12-456-2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

4. CHICKO DIN BIN RAHMAN (No: 800211-14-8765)

Fourth charge
That you, Chiko Din bin Rahman (NRIC: 800211-14-8765) on 18 April 2022, at time of 8.00 p.m.
had been founded at No. C4 1, 4th Floor, Block C, Pesona Apartments, Jalan Section 3/1A, Taman
Kajang Utama 43000 Kajang, Selangor had raped Jessica Rodges (NRIC: 830710-01-1234) aged
40 years and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 of the Penal
Code.

Punishment
If the person found guilty for commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping according to section 376 of Penal
Code.

Dated on 10TH July 2022

By authority of the Public Prosecutor

yusof anuar
YUSOF ANUAR BIN FAUZI

Deputy Public Prosecutor

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JUSTIFICATION

The offence of the person must clearly state in the charge. The charge for the offences must
contain the detail of time, place and person. According to section 152(2) of Criminal Procedure
Code stated that if the law which creates the offence give it any specific name the offence may be
described in the charge by the name only. Thus, the offence of the rape committed by the accused
shall be stated in this charge.

The charge for the offences must contain the detail of time, place and person. This is
required under section 153(1) of Criminal Procedure Code stated that the charge shall contain
such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person, if any, against whom
or the thing, if any, in respect of which it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the
accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. The offence for the charged must be clearly
stated in details that relate with the time and the place for the offence of rape. Thus, the accused
able to notice the matter that he had been charged for.

According to section 375 of the Penal Code stated A man is said to commit “rape” who,
except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances
falling under any of the following descriptions: (a)-(g). in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohd
Ridzwan bin Mohd Borhan. Low Hop Bing J stated that, under section 375 of the Penal which
provides for the offence of rape, a man is said commit rape if he has sexual intercourse with a
woman, e.g. without her consent. In order to establish a prima facie case of rape, the burden is on
the prosecution to prove the following ingredients: (a) sexual intercourse, (b) penetration, (c)
without her consent.

Whenever the court able to prove that the person had commit the offence of rape, the
accused could be punished by imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and
shall also be punished with whipping based on section 376 of the Penal Code.

According to the case of Public Prosecutor v Sld 15772 Hj Redzuan bin Kifli @ Hj
Halimen bin Kifli,the defendant was charged with the rape of a 13 year old girl (Ms X), a
secondary school student, subject to s 376(2) of the Penal Code. The defendant receives the
address of the victim’s house by the Plaintif through their chat. When the accused arrived at the
victim’s house, the accused had forcely entered into the house and the accused pulled her into the
living room. The victim tried to push him away but failed because he was 'so strong'. In the course
of the alleged rape, the victim was punched and slapped by the defendant. She then ran to her
stepmother's house next door and told her and Tiqah that she had been raped. Ms X's mother was
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

informed of the incident who then lodged a police report. The court had satisfied the defendant
did rape Ms X by having sexual intercourse with her without her consent and she was under the
age of 14 years at the material time as charged and convict him accordingly.

Regarding to this case, Chiko Din could be the targeted suspect to be charged for
committing rape against Jessica Rodges because Chiko Din was the only suspect that been together
with Jessica since she was kidnapped and confined by them since 12 April 2022, since two from
them who is Aidi Mas and Borhan Ajak was arrested at different places from Jessica Rodges. This
could be strengthened by the location where Chiko Din was arrested by the police at Kajang which
is the same place where Jessica Rodges was rescued by the police. Thus, could proved that Chiko
Din is the only suspect that been together with Jessica Rodges throughout the time and being raped
by him during the period. Therefore, Chiko Din who commit the offence could be charged under
section 375 of the Penal Code and could be punished under section 376 of the Penal Code.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA

(ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS OF MALAYSIA)
45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4,
62100 PUTRJAYA. TEL: 03-62017003
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA. FAKS: 03-27329474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY

CASE NO: 67-813-2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AIDI MAS BIN AHMAD DIN (No: 710419-03-5599)

BORHAN AJAK BIN ABU (No: 761208-06-1423)

CHICKO DIN BIN RAHMAN (No: 800211-14-8765)

FIFTH CHARGE

That you, Aidi Mas Bin Ahmad Din (NRIC: 710419-03-5599), Borhan Ajak Bin Abu (NRIC:
761208-06-1423), and Chicko Din Bin Rahman (NRIC: 800211-14-8765) on 12 April 2022, at
about 10.20 p.m. in a house at Jalan Senang, Kuantan, in the state of Pahang, had voluntarily
causing hurt to Jessica Rodges (NRIC: 830710-01-1234) and caused bodily pain under Section
321 of the Penal Code and, have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323
of the Penal Code.

PUNISHMENT

If found guilty, shall be punished imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine
which may extend to two thousand Ringgit, or with both.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

Dated on 10TH July 2022

By authority of the Public Prosecutor

yusof anuar
YUSOF ANUAR BIN FAUZI

Deputy Public Prosecutor

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JUSTIFICATION

According to Section 321 of the Penal Code, voluntarily causing hurt means
whoever that does any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person or with the
knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person. The act of ‘hurt’ had been explained
under Section 319 of the Penal Code, any person who caused bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Aidi Mas, Borhan Ajak and Chicko Din had
committed voluntarily causing hurt when they had confined Jessice Rodges that caused her
to have a few bruises and injuries on a few parts of her body. Meanwhile Section 323 of the
Penal Code provide for the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt whereby they shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine which may
extend to two thousand ringgit or with both.

To justify the above charge, Section 152(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code had
stated the requirement needed for charges. Under the section, it mentioned that every charge
shall state the offence which the accused is charged. Following this, the offence of voluntarily
causing hurt had been mentioned clearly in the charge above. Moreover, Section 152(2) of
the Criminal Procedure Code stated that if the offence has a specific name, then it shall be
stated in the charge. As we can see, the specific name of the charge above named “voluntarily
causing hurt” had been mentioned precisely. Next, by referring to Section 152(4) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, the law and section which the offence is said to have been
committed shall be mentioned in the charge. It was clear that the law and section of
voluntarily causing hurt had been mentioned in the above charge known as Section 321 and
Section 323 of the Penal Code. Plus, according to Section 34 of the Penal Code, it
mentioned that when a criminal act is done by several persons, the offence accused of such
offence shall be equally punished, thereby the reasons as to why all three accused had been
mentioned in the charge.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

Moreover, in order to establish the offence of hurt, there must be existence of actus
reus and mens rea. There must be causing of bodily pain, disease and infirmity in establishing
actus reus. In the case of Jashanmal Jhamatmal v Brahmanand Sarupanadh, in a dimly
lit space at the bottom of a staircase, the accused encountered a woman. In the darkness, he
let out a sharp scream and brandished a gun at her. Overwhelmed by fear, she collapsed due
to nervous shock and was discovered in a state of hysteria. The court ruled that a temporary
mental impairment qualified as an infirmity, leading to the accused being convicted for
causing harm. This case illustrates that Section 319 of the Penal Code does not require hurt
to be inflicted through direct physical contact between the accused and the victim. Applying
to the case above, actus reus was established since there is injuries and bruises on Jessica
Rodges body parts. Meanwhile, the existence of mens rea is when Aidi Mas, Borhan Ajak, and
Chicko Din have intention of committing the offence and have knowledge that Jessica Rodges will be
frighten and obey them before they released them to receive the ransom money.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA

(ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS OF MALAYSIA)
45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4,
62100 PUTRJAYA. TEL: 03-62017003
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA. FAKS: 03-27329474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY

CASE NO: 83-764-2022

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

BORHAN AJAK BIN ABU (No: 761208-06-1423)

SIXTH CHARGE

That you, Borhan Ajak Bin Abu (NRIC: 761208-06-1423) on 12 April 2022, at about 10.00 p.m
on 12 April 2022, at Jalan W.S Lee, territory of Kuala Lumpur abetted Aidi Mas Bin Ahmad
Din (NRIC: 710419-03-5599) and Chicko Din Bin Rahman (NRIC: 800211-14-8765) in
executing gang robbery at Tom Rizo’s (NRIC: 780103-14-2083) house, by giving a weapon to
Aidi Mas Bin Ahmad Din in order for him to break into Tom Rizo’s house and was waiting
outside of the house while they were robbing the house and you have therefore committed an
offence under Section 109 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 392 of the Penal
Code.

PUNISHMENT

If found guilty, shall be punished imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years,
and he shall also be liable to fine or to whipping.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

Dated on 10TH July 2022

By authority of the Public Prosecutor

yusof anuar
YUSOF ANUAR BIN FAUZI

Deputy Public Prosecutor

 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

JUSTIFICATION

To justify the above charge, Section 152(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code had mentioned
that every charge shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. According to the charge, the
offence of abetment of gang robbery has been mentioned clearly. Next, according to Section 152(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code stated that, if the offence did not have any specific name under the law, the
offence must be defined in the charge to give notice of the charge he is being charged. Since there is no
specific law regarding abetment of gang robbery in Malaysia, and there is only an offence of abetment,
therefore, in the charge above, it has been stated that Borhan Ajak had been charged with abetment of
gang robbery, where he had given weapon to Aidi Mas to break into Tom Rizo’s house and wait outside.

In addition, under Section 152(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code it stated that the law and
section which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. In the above
charge, the law of abetment under Section 109 and punishment under Section 392 of the Penal Code had
been mentioned precisely. Also, under Section 153(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code mentioned that
the charge shall contain particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person as are
reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. In applying to
the charge above, all the specific requirements had been mentioned. Moreover, the concept of abetment
is outlined in Section 107(c) of the Penal Code, which states that if the accused intentionally assists in
the commission of a conspiracy offense by any action or unlawful failure to act, it constitutes abetment.
In the present case, the accused, Borhan Ajak bin Shiro, engaged in abetment by collaborating with Adi
Mas bin Azhar and Chicko Din bin Mat in a gang-robbery. He aided Aidi Mas in breaking into Tom
Rizo's house by providing him with a weapon. This action falls under the definition of abetment as per
the relevant section of the Penal Code.

Furthermore, we can draw upon precedents such as the Chuan Kea Chan Ltd v PP case and the
Ramavtar Gupta v Manak Raj case, where it was established that the actions of the accused, whether
occurring before or during the offence, can be considered aiding. In the current case, Borhan Ajak bin
Shiro deliberately assisted Aidi Mas without the use of force by providing him with a weapon. This
assistance enabled Aidi Mas to break into Tom Rizo's house and commit a gang-robbery.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 32411067

Moreover, in the context of illustration (c) provided in Section 109 of the Penal Code, it
illustrates a scenario where individuals A and B conspire to poison Z. A acquires the poison and hands
it over to B, who then poisons Z in A's absence. In this case, B is culpable for murder, while A is guilty
of abetting the conspiracy leading to the offense committed by B. Consequently, A is subject to the
penalty for murder. Applying this principle to the current charge, Borhan Ajak bin Shiro is accountable
for abetting the gang-robbery offense. He facilitated the crime by procuring and supplying the weapon
to Aidi Mas, enabling him to break into Tom Rizo's house and commit the robbery with Chicko Din,
while Borhan Ajak bin Shiro remained outside.