Prima Facie Journey

Section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides that, "Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant."

Although in this section, we can divide relevant facts into three parts but I will only discuss facts which are the occasion, cause of effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue. What does it mean?

Illustration (b) best illustrates the above:
The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.

I'll refer to few cases to understand section 7 better.

1st case: KOW LIANG TIANG v. PP [2011] 9 CLJ 172

The bent and broken scissors, the injuries to the appellant's right hand palm, the deceased's blood-stains on the appellant's T-shirt and shorts are all tell-tale facts that formed the strands of circumstantial evidence within the criteria set out in s. 7 of the Evidence Act 1950. The appellant was alleged to have murdered his wife and the cause of death was due to: (i) "soft tissue injuries" and  (ii) "multiple stab and penetrating wounds". (caused by scissors) When the appellant was arrested at a Rumah Tumpangan in Kulai on the next day, his right hand palm was injured. This fact is to be seen in the light of facts that the alleged murder weapon, in the form of a pair of scissors, had a broken handle and that the blade was bent. The scissors must have been used with such force that the end of the blade was bent, and that in the course of which, it must have caused the injuries to the right hand palm. Besides recovering the blood-stained scissors the police also recovered a T-shirt and shorts with traces of blood stains in a pail in the house, there is evidence to show that the T-shirt and shorts are those of the appellant. The chemist later confirmed that the blood stains on the scissors, T-shirt and shorts is that of type "B", which was the blood type of the deceased. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem confirmed that the scissors (P8A) could have caused the multiple and penetrating wounds found on the deceased. All these evidence show cause or effect to fact in issue, that is the murder of the deceased in this case. These relevant facts are admissible under section 7 to link appellant to the murder. 2nd case: PP v Toh Kee Huat [1965] 1 MLJ 76 In this case, a car has been stolen but was found the next day. Fingerprints was found on the inner surface of the glass on the driver's door and was proved to be those of the respondents. The position of the fingerprints shows that the mark could not have been made there except after someone (if not himself) had unlawfully tampered with the locked car to gain entry. Although fingerprints are more relevant under section 9 due to identification, but in this case, the position of the fingerprints itself are relevant under section 7 to show the occasion, cause of effect of the car-theft.  This relevant fact is admissible to link the respondent to the car-theft. Section 7 and 9 are closely connected because whatever evidence found which are  occasion, cause or effect to relevant facts or fact in issue may be relevant facts under section 9 for identification. For example, fingerprints and blood-type. However, section 7 is relevant to link the evidence found to fact in issue. For example, in PP v Toh Kee Huat, there were other fingerprints  found as well but the position of respondent's fingerprint inside the glass on the  driver's door show that it could not be there unless  there's unlawful tampering to break in the car, thus link the evidence to fact in issue, that is the car theft in that case. In Kow Liang Tiang v PP, the evidence found are relevant facts under  section 7  to link it with the deceased's death caused by multiple stabs and penetrating wound caused by scissors. The fact that appellant's blood stains was  found on the scissors, clothes and also injury on his right palm showed the cause to the murder.  Thus, I agree with the court's decision in Kow LIang Tiang v PP where the appellant was convicted for murder and was sentenced to death. Court referred also to Thomson CJ in Chan Chwen Kong v. PP [1962] 1 LNS 22 " ... what has to be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of evidence but also the combined strength of these strands when twisted together to make a rope. The real question is: is that rope strong enough to hang the prisoner?" Indeed, circumstantial evidence are sufficient and strong enough to sustain the finding of guilt of the appellant. The cumulative evidence, though circumstantial, has irresistibly point to one and only conclusion that it was the appellant who had caused the injuries to the deceased and that such injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.   Likewise, the fingerprints found on the glass from inner surface shows that the  respondent is indeed responsible for the car theft because one's fingerprints can't possibly found from inner surface unless he had broken into the car.