856 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the case of Krishnan and Anor v Public Prosecutor [1981] 2 MLJ 121 it was held by the then Supreme Court that it was not a legal obligation for the prosecution to state specifically, in a charge for murder, as to which particular clause in the definition under s 300 of the Penal Code, the accused person was alleged to have committed the offence as charged. Based on that high authority, the charge such as appeared in P2 would suffice, to my mind, to bring home to the accused, the alleged complaint by the public prosecutor on behalf of the State, against him. The requisite evidence would be unfolded during the course of the trial. A B C [10] ‘Rape’ connotes a sexual intercourse between a man and a woman of age of discretion (not being legally ‘underaged’ or incapable of giving consent) without her prior consent. Under the law as contained under s 376 of the Penal Code, for the offence of rape, the prosecution is required to prove that the penetration for the accused’s penis into the private part of the victim was done without her consent. In the context of this case, the deceased was about 23 years old at the time of the incident and as such, consent was a relevant issue and the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the deceased had not consented to the sexual intercourse with the accused. D [11] In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must discharge the burden placed on its shoulders on the threshold of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt. Before that is achievable, it would have to establish a prima facie case with respect to the two charges, through evidence, either direct or in the form of circumstantial evidence, in order for this court to call the accused to enter on his defence to each of the charges preferred against him. Anything that fell short of such proof by the prosecution must entail orders of acquittal and discharge in favour of the accused, from both the said charges. F THE PROSECUTION’S CASE [12] After the learned deputy had closed the case for the prosecution, it had become clear that the case against the accused had not been one based on direct evidence, in the sense that there was no eyewitness who had seen him commit those offences. Neither was there introduced by the prosecution as evidence, a confession voluntarily given by the accused, wherein the latter had owned up to having committed these offences. So basically, the case for the prosecution had been constructed from the various circumstantial evidence gathered from the relevant witnesses concerned with this case. [13] The learned deputy had called 19 witnesses to testify before this court to prove the two charges against the accused, and though each of these witnesses had its own important role to play in the course of proving the two charges, it E G H I