426 Malayan Law Journal [2010] 4 MLJ stained clothes and the second appellant was in a state of shock. When the friends in the car enquired as to what had happened the second appellant had responded that he and the first appellant had killed someone but that they had no intention to cause death. There was also evidence identifying the appellants to be the two persons purchasing the parang, which was the murder weapon. Based on this evidence, which was primarily circumstantial, the appellants were charged with committing the murder of the deceased, an offence under s 302 of the Penal Code (‘Code’). The defence of the appellants was a denial. The first appellant testified that the purchase of the parang and the plan to help the deceased’s daughters by murdering the deceased had been orchestrated by one ‘Ivan’ who was a gangster and the key person behind the murder. The evidence of the second appellant was described as a ‘carbon copy’ of the first appellant with regard to Ivan. The trial judge held that the appellants had no intention to kill the deceased and as such they could not be guilty of murder under s 302 of the Code. Instead he found them guilty only of the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the second limb of s 304 of the Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for a period of ten years to take effect from their date of arrests. While the appellants appealed against the period of sentence of imprisonment, the prosecution appealed against conviction and sentence as the charge originally made against both appellants was framed pursuant to s 302 of the Code. The Court of Appeal found that taking into account the element of premeditation, the nature of the weapon used, the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, which included a savage attack, and all other surrounding circumstances the irresistible conclusion to arrive at was that both appellants intended to kill the deceased. The Court of Appeal thus reversed the decision of the High Court and reinstated a conviction pursuant to s 302 of the Code, which was the original charge, and hence the present appeal. The appellants submitted that there were ‘gaps’ in the prosecution led by the prosecution and that the latter had in effect failed to establish the actus reus in relation to the appellants. The appellants further submitted that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The issues to be dealt with in this appeal were whether the High Court judge had erred in his evaluation of the circumstantial evidence as opposed to the defence raised by the appellants; whether there were material flaws in the case for the prosecution emerging from the questionable evidence, such as the T-shirt seized from the first appellant’s flat and the parang from the deceased’s house, and from the infirmities in the conduct of the identification parade and in the alleged failure to call several witnesses; and whether the High Court judge had properly addressed the issue of common intention. Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) When the credibility of witnesses were being evaluated, the functions of an appellate court were limited in their character and scope. The High A B C D E F G H I