New interpretation on section 34 Penal Code

Section 34 of the Penal Code states as follows:-
"Each of several persons liable for an act done by all, in like manner as if done by him alone. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone."

There has been authoritative decisions from the Privy Council that physical presence is necessary in order to convict the accomplice under the section 34 Penal Code.

In the case of Sabarudin bin Non & Ors v PP (2004), the Court of Appeal ruled that the presence is not necessary for section 34 to apply. Although the fourth and fifth accused were not present in the crime scene, they were acting in concert by means of the cell-phone and other conversations and participated in the abetment of the killing of the deceased. The Court of Appeal ruled that section 34 should be interpreted having regard to modern technogical advances. The Court of Appeal found the support from two recent Indian cases namely Suresh v State of Utar Pradesh (2001) and Hari Ram v State of Utar Pradesh (2004).

The evidence of itemised phone bill was admissible to show the state of mind of the first accused.

The case of Sabarudin bin Non has been reported widely in the press. It was known as the Hasleza Ishak case (the second wife of Raja Dihilir Perak). The fourth and fifth accused were sentence to 20 years imprisonment respectively.


In the case of Lee Kwai Heong & Others v PP, the Court of Appeal endorsed the new interpretation of the section 34.