Defense of Self Defense and Sudden Fight - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Task
CRIMINAL LAW: Murder – Defence – Defence of self-defence and sudden fight – Whether raised at trial stage – Whether bare statements in absence of evidence or corroboration to defence – Whether defence proven on balance of probabilities CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Trial judge’s findings – Whether prosecution’s evidence subjected to maximum evaluation – Whether prima facie case made out at end of prosecution’s case – Whether trial judge correctly relied on circumstantial evidence – Whether trial judge considered defence raised by appellant EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence – Murder – Whether evidence directly implicated appellant – Whether single cut or stabbing sufficient to lead to irresistible inference that serious injury leading to death was intended The appellant was charged under s. 302 of the Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased. The cause of death, according to the evidence of the pathologist, was ‘chop incised wound’ on the neck of the deceased. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the trial judge.

having accorded a maximum evaluation to the evidence adduced by the witnesses and having been satisfied that all the ingredients of the offence under s. 302 of the Penal Code had been established, ruled that a prima facie case had been made out against the appellant. The appellant, in his defence, denied inflicting the wound or injury suffered by the deceased and claimed that he was acting in ‘self-defence’ when he was attacked by the deceased. At the end of the trial, the trial judge held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was convicted on the charge and was sentenced to death. The appellant appealed against the decision on the grounds that: (i) the prosecution’s evidence had not been subjected to maximum evaluation by the trial judge; (ii) the trial judge had failed to fully consider the defence raised by the appellant; and (iii) the court had failed to properly appreciate the testimony of PW8 which corroborated the appellant’s defence.

 When circumstantial evidence is the basis of the prosecution’s case, the evidence proved must irresistibly point to one and only one conclusion, namely the guilt of the accused. On the records, there was no other hypothesis suggested or put to the prosecution’s evidence implicating the appellant directly to the incident where the deceased suffered the fatal 150 [2015] 4 CLJ A B C D E F G H I Current Law Journal chop-wound. It was not suggested at all to any of the prosecution’s witnesses that the deceased was armed with a weapon. Therefore, the trial judge did not commit any error at the close of the prosecution’s case in relying on the circumstantial evidence to hold that a prima facie case had been made out and it was the appellant who had inflicted the injury which had resulted in the death of the deceased. (paras 24, 25 & 27) (2) In order to form a conclusion of intention to cause death, it was not necessary that there should be a series of injuries or stabbing.

Even a single cut or stabbing cleverly executed to a crucial organ or part of a body was sufficient to lead to an irresistible inference that serious injury leading to death was intended. The evidence of the pathologist was that the single chop-wound to the neck of the deceased which had severed the vertebral artery was the direct cause of the death. (para 30) (3) The defence of self-defence and sudden fight was never raised at the trial stage and therefore, irrespective of whether it was sudden fight or self defence, they were bare statements from the appellant. There was no shred of evidence or any corroboration as to such alleged incident even remotely in the case. In the circumstances, there was no misdirection on the part of the trial judge in approaching the defence of self defence or sudden fight. The burden on the accused in raising such a defence was to prove it on a balance of probabilities. Upon his failure to do so, the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. (paras 34, 35, 36 & 45) (4) It was incumbent upon the defence to have pursued to obtain relevant medical evidence and to have it adduced in the court to establish that the wounds suffered by the appellant were indeed in the nature of ‘defensive wound’. However, on the evidence led before the court, there was no defensive wound that had been inflicted on the appellant. Therefore, there was no material misdirection by the trial judge given that the overwhelming and unrebutted evidence that directly implicated the appellant to the fatal injury suffered by the deceased. 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Papers. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
    

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment Experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction