domainsss for sale

email me for detail : suza3036@gmail.com or try out affiliate programme offerred by nivovo.com. trial version available...demo...tutorials...even you are not an expert you can make your own website functional as forum, blog, business website with e-commerce and many other application...choose and install...free seminar and webhosting workshops...you own databases to whatever you uploaded...upgrade your networking range

everyday is a new ***** to you

no matter how brilliant you are, you never what would and will happen the next day. especially to you and your surround. so what is the best act that you must think of to be done the next day. Every day is a new opportunity. You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again. you are given all the days of your life the opportunity until the last day where nothing will be accepted beneficial except the best acts without permitting you the chance to appeal or to start over again. hence make your daily corrections and act best for your final day which is really final.

p/s: to look through others is easier than to look what is inside yourself. comment on you yourself first...you will succeed in your final.

S300 special exception...provocation (malayVers)

verbal insults is not enough to qualify accused to use this special exceptin but a 'accumulatively' is different.

Kecualian Khusus S.300 KK

Perbezaan di antara kecualian am (general exceptions) dengan kecualian khusus (special exceptions).
Kesan pemakaian kecualian am ialah tertuduh boleh dibebaskan jika berjaya dibuktikan (melainkan dalam kes2 tertentu).
Kesan pemakaian khusus bagi s.300 ialah tertuduh tidak disabitkan dengan bunuh, tapi sabitan mematikan orang dengan salah. Oleh itu hukuman adalah di bawah s.304.

Kategori Kecualian Khusus

Bangkitan marah/provokasi
Melampaui hak pertahanan persendirian
Melampaui kuasa sebagai penjawat awam
Pergaduhan mengejut
Kerelaan orang yang berumur 18 tahun dan ke atas untuk ditamatkan nyawanya.

Exception 1- Provocation
“Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.”

Maksud Provokasi menurut undang2
“Acts which are sufficient to prevent the exercise of reason and to deprive a reasonable man of his self-control, so negativing the existence of malice, and thus reducing the crime of homicide from murder to manslaughter”.
“Conducts or words causing someone to lose his self-control. Provocation is not recognised as a general defence to a criminal charge in Englaish law, though what otherwise would have been murder, may be reduced to manslaughter if provocation is shown (it is not however, a defence to a charge of attempted murder”.

Provocation under the English law
Lord Goddard dalam R v Duffy: “Provocation is some acts or things or both done by any person to the defendant which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the defendant a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the defendant so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind”.

Perkara2 yg perlu diberi pertimbangan
Samada wujudnya masa untuk meredakan kemarahan dan tertuduh boleh menguasai semula kawalan fikirannya;
Samada bangkitan marah itu wajar/munasabah dengan apa yang telah dilakukan mangsa.

Elemen2 Kecualian 1
Hilang akal akibat bangkitan marah
Bangkitan marah yang besar dan mengejut
Berlakunya kematian mangsa yang membangkitkan marah @
Berlakunya kematian orang lain dgn tidak sengaja.

Syarat2 Pemakaian Provokasi
Provokasi tidak dicari2/dibangkitkan secara sengaja oleh tertuduh sebagai helah untuk membunuh
Provokasi bukan disebabkan oleh perkara yg dilakukan menurut undang2/oleh penjawat awam yg menjalankan kuasanya yg sah di sisi undang2.
Provokasi tidak didatangkan oleh perkara yg dilakukan bg menjalankan hak pertahanan persendirian yg sah di sisi undang2.

Bagaimana menentukan provokasi?
Provokasi merupakan suatu persoalan fakta;Lihat Huraian bagi Kecualian1 ie Samada bangkitan marah itu cukup besar dan mengejut bagi mengelakkan kesalahan itu daripada terjumlah kpd kesalahan membunuh orang adalah suatu soal nyataan (question of fact).
Bila ia adalah persoalan fakta, maka mahkamah dalam menentukan wujud atau tidak provokasi untuk menurunkan darjah bunuh kpd culpable homicide, akan menimbangkan keseluruhan fakta kes yang membawa kpd berlakunya provakasi itu.
Lihat kes2 yg telah diputuskan eg Chong Teng v PP,Mat Sawi Bahodin v PP, PP v Lassake etc; bagaimana mahkamah menentukan provokasi tertuduh.

Ujian Provokasi
Ujian subjektif – bagaimana tertuduh menyebabkan kematian mangsa akibat provokasi.
Ujian objektif – bila orang biasa yang munasabah juga akan hilang kawalan diri secara mengejut akibat provokasi itu sebagaimana tertuduh.
Lihat keputusan kes2 Ikau Anak Mail v PP, Vijayan v PP – di mana mahkamah di Malaysia telah menerima pakai ujian provokasi yang digunakan oleh common law : “The test to be applied to ascertain the sufficiency of provocation under our law is the same as that applied under the common law. In every case it depends on the effect of the provocative act on the ordinary man, that is an ordinary reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused”.
Jadi siapakah org biasa yg munasabah?? Adakah dilihat di segi adat, gaya hidup, kebudayaan, nilai sosial atau bangsa yang sama?

PP v Awang Raduan bin Awang Bol[1998] 5 MLJ 460
“Untuk berjaya dalam pembelaan bangkitan marah besar dan mengejut, adalah perlu di sisi undang2 untuk pihak pembelaan memuaskan mahkamah bahawa tertuduh bukan sahaja kehilangan kuasa mengawal diri melalui perbuatan si mati, tetapi perbuatan bangkitan marah demikian juga akan merampas kuasa kawalan kendiri daripada orang munasabah. Sekiranya perbuatan tindak balas keseluruhannya tidak seimbang dgn bangkitan marah yg timbul, rayuan bangkitan marah besar dan mengejut akan gagal. Perkara ini mestilah dipertimbangkan secara objektif dan beban terletak pada tertuduh untuk membuktikan bangkitan marah pada imbangan kebarangkalian”.

bersambunglah...

'Menjadi AlHafiz di rumah' is possible next step

Anda boleh dengan mudah menghafal Quran Karim kerana zaman skrg sesiapa pun memiliki satu atau lebih peranti berikut:
* Desktop Komputer
* Komputer
* Laptop Tablet PC
* MP3 Player
* DVD Player
* VCD Player
* iPod kereta
* MP3 player
* Telefon bimbit yang menyokong fail audio
* peranti lain yang menyokong fail audio

2. anda hanya mecuba penyelesaian keseluruhan bacaan Quran dengan suara dari file mp3 kegemaran yang disediakan dalam segmen-segmen kecil sekitar 1-1,5 setiap minit.

3. Dengan cara ini kita berulang-ulang boleh mendengar 1 segmen atau lebih sehari selama 10-20 kali, dan yang pasti akan membantu anda mengingat dengan lebih baik. benar, 10-20 minit sehari boleh membuat anda menghafal semua Ayat Al Quran.

4. ragu-ragu tentang konsep ini? cuba fikirkan bagaimana orang-orang yang mendengar lagu kegemaran mereka. Apakah mereka terus menghafal lirik setelah mereka membeli album terbaru? Bagaimana mereka boleh melakukannya? Repetitiveness adalah kuncinya!

5. Ketika kita mendengar segmen Quran berulang-ulang, otak kita menyerap sepotong ayat dari setiap audio dan memaksanya disimpan dalam memori anda. Keputusan jangka jauhnya: Quran suci yang akan tersimpan di dalam memori dalaman otak. Bahkan jika anda melupakan beberapa segmen yang hafal, mereka akan dengan mudah dpt melalui semakan, kerana otak anda sudah menyerap bunyi ayat-ayat dengan banyak kali.

seterusnya apa yang nak dimainkan di player anda. pastinya anda perlu memuat turun fail mp3 semua juzuk alquran dan memperdengarkannya secara berjadual dan menanda setiap juzuk yang sudah dihafaz serta menyemak bacaan dengan alQuran.

download ayat-ayat di link berikut..http://www.memorize-quran.com...maksudnya jika ada yang berminat...gunakan Download Accelerator plus (boleh buat bulk download)




***juga link utk download alQuran Bentuk PDF untuk menyenangkan anda menyemak ketika menghafaz.

'Menjadi AlHafiz di rumah' is possible step by step

Adik Muhammad ...Tamat hafaz Al-Quran pada usia 10 tahun...yang dewasa lagi boleh...

1. List of Juz in the Holy Qur'an....memorize these first.

Juz’ 1 – Al Fatiha 1 – Al Baqarah 141
Juz’ 2 – Al Baqarah 142 - Al Baqarah 252
Juz’ 3 – Al Baqarah 253 - Al Imran 92
Juz’ 4 – Al Imran 93 - An Nisaa 23
Juz’ 5 – An Nisaa 24 - An Nisaa 147
Juz’ 6 – An Nisaa 148 - Al Ma’idah 81
Juz’ 7 – Al Ma’idah 82 - Al An’am 110
Juz’ 8 – Al An’am 111 - Al A’raf 87
Juz’ 9 – Al A’raf 88 - Al Anfal 40
Juz’ 10 – Al Anfal 41 - At Tauba 92
Juz’ 11 – At Tauba 93 - Hud 5
Juz’ 12 – Hud 6 - Yusuf 52
Juz’ 13 – Yusuf 53 – Ibrahim 52
Juz’ 14 – Al Hijr 1 – An Nahl 128
Juz’ 15 – Bani Isra’il 1 - Al Kahf 74
Juz’ 16 – Al Kahf 75 – Ta Ha 135
Juz’ 17 – Al Anbiyaa 1 - Al Hajj 78
Juz’ 18 – Al Muminun 1 - Al Furqan 20
Juz’ 19 – Al Furqan 21 - An Naml 55
Juz’ 20 – An Naml 56 - Al Ankabut 45
Juz’ 21 – Al Ankabut 46 - Al Ahzab 30
Juz’ 22 – Al Ahzab 31 - Ya Sin 27
Juz’ 23 – Ya Sin 28 - Az Zumar 31
Juz’ 24 – Az Zumar 32 - Fussilat 46
Juz’ 25 – Fussilat 47 - Al Jathiya 37
Juz’ 26 – Al Ahqaf 1 - Az Zariyat 30
Juz’ 27 – Az Zariyat 31 - Al Hadid 29
Juz’ 28 – Al Mujadila 1 – At Tahrim 12
Juz’ 29 – Al Mulk 1 - Al Mursalat 50
Juz’ 30 – An Nabaa 1 - An Nas 6

"satu hari nanti, kita akan berjaya."

pic: sourced from Google

mereka melalui rintangan dan cobaan untuk menegakkan keadilan dan kesaksamaan. mereka bersusah payah dengan apa jua kesanggupan sebagai bayaran untuk keadilan itu. walaupun keputusan bukan untuk mereka pada hari ini. hanya kerana ada yang cenderung berpihak, ada yang melihat jumlah dari hasil pertolongan dan selainnya...tapi tidakkah mereka ingat bahawa hasil segala departures from the original will cost them later on...sabar mereka itu pasti terbayar, keringat mereka pasti dikenangkan, usaha mereka pasti orang benar-benar menyokongnya tanpa diupah, disogok atau didorong. ingatlah "satu hari nanti, kita akan berjaya."

S300 COMMENTARIES

visual ihsan dari: ibnufathani.blogspot.com
Mahkamah agung milik Yang Maha Esa ialah di Mahsyar...
lawyer: diri sendiri....
saksi: diri sendiri (anggota terlibat jenayah maksiat)
jatuh hukum: berdasarkan pengakuan sendiri
pelaksana hukuman: diri sendiri.
rayuan: not-available kalo tak merayu dari skrg n bertaubat
ratio decidendi: Awwal kalimah kat atas itu...diperbenarkan, diperlafazkan n diperamalkan dan banyak exceptions available di Mahsyar...n jgnlah ia diperlanggar, dipertentang, diputarbelitkan, ditakperlembagakan...dan banyak charges diperuntukkan (mahkamah itu takkan bertangguh)...fikir-fikirkan

(belajar dalam INGAT) (bukan study smart / hard) (you write you remember)
dan terus kepada tajuknya...

..........................................................................................................................

Section 300 Penal code: Murder; mens rea determined; exceptions draw direction to culpable or grievous hurts...need full copy of digital Act 574 PC...send request to myemail to download link. or you already have it on your pc...great...but do make a comment on this article (originally Morgan's)

In case of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused ; S.D Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC).

Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the agricultural instrument by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel – Held. Accused did not cause the injury intentionally; Patel Rasikal Becharbhi v. State of Gurjarat, AIR 1992 SC 1150.

(1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused , placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self- control
(2)In India, words and gestures may also , under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception, to Section 300.
(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and suddenprovocation for committing the offence. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 3 Crimes 146 (Med).

Mere sudden quarrel woud not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Med).

To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely
(i) it was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner… The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence mast have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have been acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner . Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the , moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Madhya pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).

Where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defence for both sides. Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. State of Madhys Prasesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).

Where the extra judicial condession made by accused admitting the crime of throwing his three minor children also recovered form well, therefore accused liable for offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC; Narayana Swamyt v. Stateof Karnataka ,2000 Cr LJ 262 (Karn).

Where evidence of both eye witness reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is liable to be sustained ; Rabba Ramanna Dora v. State of Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).

Where the eye with nesses were close relations of accused and were natural with ness and their consistant evidence regarding assault by accused with knife to deceased , bother of accused which caused his death, corroborated by other with ness of incident,
therefore guilt of accused proved beyond reasonable doubt; Suaukar Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).

Where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other with ness who apprehend the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore , charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt; Ram Nath Novia v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 318 (Pat).

Plea of alibi in murder case, when most of the evidences prove presence of accused on spot of murder, can not be relied upon. It is on accused to prove that he was not present that too by reliable evidence only; Singha Magan Gamit v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cri LJ 2111 (Guj).

Pelting stones resulted into rob-fracture. Rupture of pleura is sufficient to cause death. External injury noted by doctors- appellants cannot put under clause 3rd or section 300. Guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Madan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1998 SCC (Cr) 1549.

Chain of evidence must be complete with fully established circumstances not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature: Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT 554.

Wrist watch was santched by accused of deceased . On request called to meet on specified spot. Hot words were exchange knife blow was given on chest to deceased also to the person who came to rescue him. It cannot be said fatal injuries were without predestination exception cannot be applied ; Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1999 AIR (SC) 338:

Where the evidence of eye with ness regarding assault to deceased by accused persons was truthful , reliable and clearly corroborated by medical evidence and common intention of accused parsons to Commit murder of deceased also proved therefore conviction under section 300/34 us proper ; Ratan Devnath v. State of Tripura, 2000 Cr LJ 237 (Gau).

Where the co accused also shard common intention of committing murder of deceased by exhorting accused to commit crime, then offence punishable under section 302r/ w section 34 IPC was also proved against him; Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 63 (All).

Where evidence of eye withness neither woholly reliable nor wholly unreliable then it can not be inferred that both accused were individually or collectively were respondible for causing death of deceased while injury was grievous in nature , there conviction under section 302 althred to one under section 326 IPC; Shaik Subhani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 321 (AP).

Where no prejudice caused to accuded due to alteration of charge from under sections 302,392 I.P.C to section 396, Therefore trial not vitiated; K.M.Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197 (Karn).

S300 ; short comments of 30 principles

1. Dalam kes di mana tidak ada niat untuk menyebabkan kematian, perbuatan itu dilakukan dengan pengetahuan yang sama mungkin menyebabkan kematian, yang bersalah dari pelanggaran datang di bawah bahagian II dari section. 304;
SDSoni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) CrLJ 330 (SC)

2. Dalam tidak ada niat untuk menyebabkan kecederaan tertentu mungkin menyebabkan kematian keyakinan datang di bawah bahagian II dari section. 304;
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 55 (1981 Cr LR (SC) 543: (1981) 4 SCC 484.

3. Ketika tidak ada bukti tentang bagaimana kematian itu berlaku, bukti-bukti yang berkaitan dengan tuduhan pembunuhan akan diputuskan tidak cukup dan tidak boleh diterima;
Kedar Nath v. Negara bahagian Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 989 (SC).

4. Ketika dalam kes pembunuhan membuat aduan setelah sebulan insiden, kenyataan direkodkan selepas 9 bulan, keyakinan tidak boleh ditubuhkan (conviction cannot be founded); Negara Bengal Barat v. Shew Mangal Singh, AIR 1981SC 1917:1981) Kr LJ1683: (1981) Cr JR (SC) 501: (1981) 4 SCC 2.

5. Keadaan dimana tertuduh berada menunjukkan dia memiliki ternakan milik simati tidak boleh menyebabkan tertuduh terus dituduh bersalah atas pembunuhan;
Joga Gola v. State of Gujarat, AIR SC 982 1227; (1982) SCC (Cr) 141.

6. Ketika tertuduh tidak punya niat untuk menyebabkan kecederaan pada bahagian non-vital tubuh yang sudah cukup (sufficient) untuk menyebabkan kematian dlm ordinary course of nature, ilustrasi (c) section 300 adalah tidak terpakai;
Gokul Parashram Patil v. Negara Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1441; (1981) Cr LJ 1033.

7. Jumlah kecederaan dikenakan pada simati dengan jelas menyokong penemuan kedua-dua mahkamah di bawah bahawa tertuduh / perayu meneruskan belabouring simati sampai dia mati on the spot. Dalam situasi ini, tanggapan bahawa tertuduh tidak berniat untuk menyebabkan pembunuhan tidak dapat ditegakkan (upheld) oleh Fed. court;
Prabhu v. Negara Madyha Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC).

8. Berkitan jumlah cedera yang dikenakan pada simati, contention untuk menegakkan pendapat bahawa tidak ada niat untuk membunuh adalah tidak mungkin ;
Prabhu v. Negara bahagian Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC).

9. Pendirian bahawa penglibatan tertuduh dalam insiden dan perasaan waswas dari pukulan Barchhi kepada cucu simati ketika dia cuba untuk menyelamatkan simati, cukup untuk menghukum tertuduh dibawah section 300 dibaca dengan section 34 ;
Banta Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) Cr LJ 1342 (SC).

11. Jumlah dan sifat kecederaan boleh memberi keterangan yang baik untuk mempertimbangkan apakah tertuduh telah melebihi hak untuk mempertahankan diri;
Patori Devi ay. Amar Nath, (1988) Cr LJ 836; AIR 1988 SC 560.

to be continued...wt 19 more.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

A. Structure.
1. Penal code s 299 and s 300
2. Penal code s 304
3. Penal code s 302
4. Penal code 304(A)

B. Actus reus of homicide.
1. Penal code 315

C. Mens rea terms compared.
1. S 299(1) and s 300(a)
(a) Proof of intention
(b) Meaning of intention
2. S 299(2) 299(3) and s 300(b)
3. S 299(2) and s 300(c)
(a) Introduction / overview
(b) S 300(c) ; subjective or objective?
(c) Escape cases
(d) Egg-shell skull cases
4. S 299(3) and s 300(d)
(a) S 299(3) and s 300(d)(i)
(b) S 299(3) and s 300(d)(ii)
(c) Lack of excuse.
5. Conclusion.

D. Transferred malice and constructive mens rea.
1. Penal code s 301

E. Killing a supposed cropse.
1. The problem
2. The solution
3. Conclusion.

**simplified from Morgan's.

CRIMINAL...CHAPTER XVI...OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY

SECTION 299. Culpable homicide.-

299. Culpable homicide.- Whoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Pembunuhan menyebabkan kematian dengan melakukan tindakan (ACTUS REUS) dengan tujuan (MENS REA) menyebabkan kematian, atau dengan tujuan menimbulkan kecederaan tubuh seperti yang mungkin menyebabkan kematian, atau dengan pengetahuan (MENS REA) bahawa ia cenderung dengan tindakan tersebut untuk menyebabkan kematian, melakukan CULPABLE HOMISIDE (pembunuhan patut disalahkan.)

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed . A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

Ilustrasi

(a) A meletakkan kayu dan rumput di atas lubang, dengan tujuan sehingga menyebabkan kematian, atau dengan pengetahuan bahawa kematian mungkin disebabkan demikian. Z percaya tanah itu kukuh, berpijak di atasnya, jatuh dan mati. Si A telah melakukan kesalahan “pembunuhan patut disalahkan”.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B dies not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(B) A tahu Z berada di balik semak-semak. B tidak tahu bahawa A berniat untuk menyebabkan, atau mengetahui hal itu terjadi mungkin menyebabkan kematian Z, telah mendorong B untuk nyalakan api di semak-semak. B laukan pembakaran dan membunuh Z. Disini, B mungkin tidak bersalah, tetapi A melakukan kesalahan “pembunuhan patut bersalah”.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful acct, he was not guilty of culpable homicide , as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

(C) A menembak pada unggas dengan maksud untuk membunuh dan mencuri, telah membunuh B yang berada di belakang semak-semak ; A tidak tahu bahawa B ada di sana. Di sini, walaupun A melakukan perlakuan yang menyalahi undang-undang, dia tidak bersalah atas “pembunuhan patut bersalah”, kerana dia tidak berniat untuk membunuh B, atau untuk menyebabkan kematian dengan melakukan -- tindakan yang dia tahu ada kemungkinan untuk menyebabkan kematian.

Explanation 1.- a person who cause bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Penjelasan 1 .- seseorang yang menyebabkan kecederaan kepada orang lain yang dalam keadaan di bawah disorder, penyakit atau kelemahan tubuh, dan dengan demikian mempercepatkan kematian si mati, harus dianggap telah menyebabkan kematiannya.

Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Penjelasan 2 .- apabila kematian disebabkan oleh kecederaan tubuh badan, orang yang menyebabkan kecederaan tersebut akan dianggap telah menyebabkan kematian, walaupun dengan beralih kepada penyelesaian yang tepat dan rawatan pakar kematian mungkin telah dicegah

Explanation 3.- The causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Penjelasan 3 .- yang menyebabkan kematian anak di ibu rahim bukan pembunuhan. Tapi ia mungkin boleh disabit sebagai kes “pembunuhan patut bersalah” kerana menyebabkan kematian anak yang hidup, jika ada bahagian dari anak yang telah zahir (cukup sifat), walaupun anak mungkin tidak bernafas atau tidak benar-benar lahir.

COMMENTS

(i) “Culpable homicide” is genus, and “murder” is the specie. All “murder” is culpable homicide but not vice-versa;

(ii) The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the deceased was not armed;.

KOMENTAR

(i) "pembunuhan patut bersalah" adalah genus, dan "pembunuhan" adalah specie. Semua “pembunuhan " adalah “pembunuhan patut bersalah” tetapi tidak sebaliknya;

NARASINGH CHALLAN V. STATE OF ORISSA,(1997) 2 CRIMES 78(ORI) refer Malaysian case;

(ii) Serangan untuk pembunuhan tidak boleh dikatakan tiba-tiba dan tanpa meditasi jika Si mati tidak bersenjata;

STATE OF MAHRASHTRA V. KRISHANA MURTI LAZMIPATTI NAIDU, AIR 1981 SC 617; refer Malaysian case;

sumber: www.agc.com.my