complaint as conduct, how?

How could complaints make by a complainant be treated as conduct under section 8 of Evidence Act 1950? This could be answer by looking into the analysis of section 8(2) and 3 cases as followed:

1. section 8(2), this section is relating to conduct of:
(i)  any party or agent of any party (eg: family members) to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding;
(ii)  any party or agent of any party in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto;
(iii) any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding;
no matter it was previous or subsequent thereto as long as it influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.

explanation: in section 8(2), TWO requirements are set up: Firstly, the nature of conduct must have influencing factors and has no time limit. Secondly, the parties of who the conduct was relevant (as stated above).

In Explanation 1 & 2, they function as exception clause in a way that it excluded the admission of mere statement.to regard as a conduct unless the statement made is relevant to the conduct. However, the mere statement might be relevant under other section in Evidence Act.

2. case of Aziz bin M. Din v PP, in this case discuss the issue of STATEMENT vs COMPLAINT

STATEMENT:
(i) relevant only as corroborative evidence under section 157
(ii) restricted by section 73A(7) (restriction on admissibility of statement in civil suit)
(iii) could only prove knowledge and no evidence conduct

COMPLAINT:
(i) relevant as it is also part of res gestae under section 6
(ii) not subject to section 73A(7)
(iii) not mere knowledge but is a kind of feeling with a view to punish and is made to authority (eg: police)

3. case of PP v Ku Hong Chua

Facts: The accused was charged with rape. The crucial question as whether there was consent on the part complainant to the sexual intercourse.
Held: complainant made the complaint almost immediately after the incident, this gave her no opportunity for reflection to falsely incriminate the accused out of remorse. Moreover, the police officer's evidence shown that complainant's appearance where her hair looked disordered, the way she holding her stomach and her dress was ruffled. And she looked weak.
Based on all these observation, it made the complaints to the police officer to be validly taken as relevant fact. This was in line with Illustration (j) under section 8.

4. case of PP v M. Terang b Amit

Facts: PP appealed against the decision that Respondent was acquitted on the charge of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of victims (students of age average 12) on the ground that there was no report made in first reasonable opportunity.
Held: the magistrate had failed to consider that the complainants were all school children so they might not possessed the idea to lodge a report and do not have the opportunity to lodge it. That made their report turn to be admissible.
Principle: if there was a valid reason in failing to file a report shortly as mentioned in Illustration (j), it do not invalidate the admissibility of the complaint.

5. conclusion
Basically, these were the matters which had to take into account before a complaint could be considered as a conduct and become admissible in court under section 8 of Evidence Act.

Relevant Facts: Identifying the Thin Line Between Section 6 and 7 of Evidence Act 1950

Today's discussion will mainly focus on 2 sections in Evidence Act 1950: section 6 & section 7.

      The facts that fall under section 6 can be explained in a way to mean facts which do not directly show the elements of mens rea or actus reus in an offence but will still play a role in relating the whole case to resolve any doubt that is possibly raised. This section is interpreted widely as there is no restriction on the proximity of the facts in terms of the time and place. 

      In the case of Tan Geok Kwang v PP, William CJ has clearly explained the concept of section 6 is to allow facts that form the transaction of a case to be taken in order to avoid other evidences as to the other facts unintelligible. In other words, section 6 allows parties to a case to bring in relevant facts  for the purpose of establishing fact in issue even though the facts on itself could not consider to be material to the case. 

       On the other hands, section 7 in my view would be rather a restricted provision compared to section 6. It required the facts to be in conformity requirements listed down in the section in order that the facts can be considered as relevant. And the requirements could be divided into 3 parts which I will explain as below:

Requirement 1: facts are a cause OR effect OR occasion of relevant facts OR facts in issue

In regard to this, the submission of the evidence need to be a fact that result in the happening of a relevant facts OR facts in issue. The facts which show the consequences of facts in issue could also be brought up as evidence. For an example, in the case of Saw Thein Teck v R, court had affirmed that evidence indicating the accused was drunk could be admitted under section 7 as it could be a causation of dangerous driving which the accused was charged under.

Besides that, Illustration (b) under section 7 is an example how marks on ground as the effect of the action of murder committed could be submitted as a relevant facts to the case.

Requirement 2: facts must constitute the state of things under which they happened 

This requirement might sound alike to the ‘cause’ in Requirement 1. However, there is difference between them. This could be shown in Illustration (a) of section 7 where the act of victim showed or mentioned the fact that he had money with him is a relevant fact since it constitutes to a situation where he possessed of an amount of money which attracted a case of robbery. The fact that he possessed of an amount of money and make known to the public is relevant. And this was to differentiate from the cause of robbery(by pointing a knife at victim) which should fall under Requirement 1.

Requirement 3: facts which would afford an opportunity for the occurrence of the facts in issue

This requirement could simply prove if there is contemplation for the occurrence of the facts in issue, the fact is relevant. Illustration (c) shows that A by knowing the state of B’s health could manipulate and administrate B’s poison could be a relevant fact. So it could be brought it under section 7. The same principle could be seen from the case of Aziz bin Muhd Din v PP, there  could be an opportunity for a sexual intercourse to take place since the complainant and accused had spent a night together. Therefore it could be raised as evidence in court.

    In short, we could see that there is no certain framework being provided to prove facts to be relevant under section 6 except the facts must be in the same transaction. However, this was certainly different from section 7 where there are 3 requirements to be fulfilled before facts could be brought under it. There might be contradiction among the 2 sections but it will be best if the facts alleged to be relevant are brought in under the most appropriate provision.