[2010] 4 MLJ A Low Kian Boon & Anor v Public Prosecutor (Heliliah FCJ) 441 [12] Wong Wing Hing is SP17. The HC judge relied on the remarks made by second appellant to SP17. Those remarks are again mentioned in the judgment of the COA as evidence that are to be taken into account under s 21 of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘Act 1950’). This aspect will be reverted to later in this judgment. B THE DEFENCE C D E F G H I [13] The trial judge referred to the defence as a ‘denial’. Both appellants have similar versions in their defence. Generally the culpability for the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased is attributed to a third person referred to as Ivan and described as a gangster. The first appellant asserted that he had accompanied Ivan in order to lend assistance to Ivan. It was alleged that Ivan intended to facilitate a friend, that is KSK, to escape from the house apparently from the clutches of her step father. The first appellant in his version claimed that he, the second appellant and Ivan proceeded to the deceased’s house in a taxi but before reaching there, the three of them alighted and Dexter (the second appellant) was told to wait at Shell petrol station which according to the evidence of P23 is about 1–1½km away from the house. According to the first appellant’s version Ivan had preceded him while he went to a restaurant (50 meters away). The first appellant conceded that he was in the vicinity of the house, and entered the compound, (the front of the house) and that he was surprised that he encountered KSY on the way to the house. According to the first appellant neither Ivan nor KSK emerged. Instead he heard a scream that caused him to take flight to the Shell petrol station where he met the second appellant again. The latter made a phone call to a friend after which a motorcar with three persons inside did arrive (namely SP17, SP18, SP19). [14] The second appellant gave the same version with the difference that he was waiting at the Shell petrol station until the first appellant came without the person named Ivan. Both the first appellant and second appellant testified that it was Ivan who had stopped at the Hardware Do It Yourself shop to purchase two parangs and that Ivan paid for the purchases. THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE COA ON THE FACTS [15] The COA stated that the court accepted as ‘entirely correct’ the findings of the HC judge ‘based on the proved facts before the learned judge’. It is observed that the facts mentioned by the COA in the grounds of judgment are found in para 4 of that judgment: 4 The evidence upon which the public prosecutor relies in support of his appeal is as follows. First, the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased. These are such as to point to an intention to kill on the part of those who inflicted them.