676 Balamurali Muthusamy v. PP [2010] 3 MLRA BALAMURALI MUTHUSAMY v. PP Court Of Appeal , Putrajaya Suriyadi Halim Omar, Hasan Lah, Ahmad Maarop JJCA [Criminal Appeal No: B-05-109-07] 28 December 2010 JUDGMENT Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA: [1] Two charges were preferred against the appellant under s. 302 of the Penal Code and the prosecution called 14 witnesses whilst the appellant called 4. The first charge reads that on 6 November 2002 at about 10pm at Lot 10352, Jalan Bunga Melur, Kampung Baru Hicom, Seksyen 26, Shah Alam, in the district of Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, the appellant had caused the death of one Sareswathy a/p Krishnan (KPT No. 780511-10-5374) (Sareswathy) and thus committed an offence under s. 302 of the Penal Code . The second charge reads that on the same date, place and time he also caused the death of one Komathi a/p Muniandy (KPT No. 771023-10-5944) (Komathi) and similarly committed an offence under s. 302 of the Penal Code . [2] In brief the facts are that on 6 November 2002 at about 8.30pm at Lot 10352, Jalan Bunga Melur, Kampung Baru Hicom, Seksyen 26, Shah Alam, Selangor one Saravanan s/o Murali (SP9) was lounging in his house when the appellant visited him on foot. The appellant said that his motorcycle had run out of petrol and requested him to purchase petrol for his empty tank. SP9 obliged him. He bought the petrol at a Petronas petrol station and handed it over to the appellant. [3] The petrol, like the murder weapon (a club) legislated in illustration (a) in s. 5 of the Evidence Act 1950 , is a relevant fact. The procurement of the petrol here, which is a preparatory act is a relevant fact (Wong Foh Hin v. Public Prosecutor [1964] 1 MLRA 578; [1964] 1 MLJ 149 ). The relevancy of the request of the appellant to SP9 to buy the petrol is seen in light of s. 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 , which promulgates that any fact is relevant, which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. As an added explanation, under illustration (c) of s. 8 of the above Act (an example of preparation of an unlawful act), it is clarified that if A is tried for the murder of B by poison, then the fact that before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant. In this case, with the unwitting assistance of SP9, the appellant had managed to purchase/procure petrol, later to be used to murder the deceased persons. This is an incontrovertible preparatory act and relevant ( Thiangiah & Anor