[2010] 3 MLRA Balamurali Muthusamy v. PP 683 definitely be engulfed by fire if the lighter is lit. The admission of wanting to kill himself by using petrol confirms that he knew the combined effect of fire on petrol. Despite that knowledge, and despite the frantic attempts of SP4 and Komathi trying to grab the lighter from him, the appellant still lit it. We were therefore satisfied that the appellant knew that his acts were so imminently dangerous and that those acts must in all probability cause death to the deceased persons, or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, and had committed such acts without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury. [26] At the end of the defence case we were satisfied that the appellant had failed to rebut the case of the prosecution on a reasonable doubt. His defence of being intoxicated was never established as the presence of alcohol in his blood or urine was never proved. Even had he established his intoxication he would have failed in convincing the court that he was forced to consume the alcohol. The evidence clearly showed that he consumed the alcohol without any coercion. At p. 139 of the appeal records he said: Sebelum membeli petrol saya telah bertemu dengan seorang perempuan bernama Susila. Susila ini ada kedai runcit. Saya beritahu Susila saya lapar dan minta makan. Susila telah menghidang nasi untuk saya. Di situlah saya telah beli whisky 99. Saya minum arak itu di situ juga . [27] As the prosecution had established a prima facie case of murder at the end of the prosecution stage, and at best have it reduced to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it was then up to the appellant to show at the defence stage that his acts were removed from the category of murder by one of the exceptions to s. 300 of the Penal Code (Piare [1919] 17 A LJ R 866). Here the appellant failed to establish that knowledge was wanting under the exception of s. 300(d) of the Penal Code . Lastly there was no excuse for him to act in the way he did incurring the risk of causing the deaths or bodily injury that led to the deaths. [28] From the totality of the evidence we were satisfied that the prosecution had established a beyond reasonable doubt case of murder against the appellant for both charges. We thereupon dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)