[2010] 3 MLRA Balamurali Muthusamy v. PP 677 v. Public Prosecutor [1976] 1 MLRH 276; [1977] 1 MLJ 79 ). Or to use the words of Jwala Prasad in Lakshmi Prasad v. Emperor AIR [1923] Pat 307/307, the preparation here which came in the form of the exploitation of SP9, and leading to the petrol procurement was the 'devising or arranging means necessary for the commission of an offence'. [4] The saga continued one hour later when one Mariammah a/l Suppiah (SP4), when cooking at about 9.30pm, heard shouts and screams and had rushed to the source of the commotion. There she saw Komathi, wife of the appellant, being drenched with petrol and the appellant attempting to strike a lighter. She saw Komathi and Sareswathy attempting to prevent the appellant from striking the lighter by embracing him. Some of the petrol had splashed also on SP4 and Sareswathy. Both Komathi and Sareswathy failed to stop the appellant and in the course of it were engulfed by fire. The appellant and SP4 were also burnt in the melee. At about that time one Ganesan a/l Muniandy (SP5) ie, husband of Sareswathy, who was outside the house also heard SP4's scream and thereupon rushed into the house. There he saw SP4, Komathi, Sarewathy (the deceased persons respectively), and appellant being engulfed by fire. He saw the appellant running out, with Komathi running towards the kitchen, and SP4 attempting to put out the fire engulfing him. Saraswathy was still burning in the lounge. SP4 after successfully extinguishing the fire proceeded to help extinguish the fire on Saraswathy. SP5 subsequently sent Sarawathy and SP4 to the hospital. [5] On receipt of information the investigating officer on duty, one Sergeant Teh Nyong Seng (SP7), left for the hospital to investigate the above incident. He saw the effects of the burns on Komathi and Sareswathy. The appellant was arrested the next day. On 10 November 2002, Sareswathy died suffering from a 70% body burn. Her death was caused by traumatic shock together with multiple organ failure. On 11 November 2002, ASP Razali bin Ahmad (SP1O) took down Komathi's statement under s. 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code . The next day she died too. She died of pneumonia and complicated multiple organ failure due to the 50% burn. [6] The appellant was subsequently charged under s. 302 of the Penal Code for the death of the deceased persons. [7] The learned judge found that the appellant was the cause of the deceaseds being engulfed by the fire, his act was imminently dangerous, the severe burns had resulted in the deaths, and the appellant knew that his acts were dangerous. The learned judge found that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case against the appellant for both the charges. [8] Having perused the evidence we found that not much of a defence was canvassed by the appellant at the stage of the prosecution. The only suggestion made eg, to PPP Ahmad Fauzi b. Mohd Zin (SP14) was that the deaths were accidental. Yet in the course of another set of questions the appellant's counsel suggested that the appellant wanted to commit suicide and the deceased persons