Seow Pei Chie & Anor v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Seow Pei Chie

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
• YA Datin Paduka Evrol Mariette Peters

• The appellants, a married couple, were convicted of murdering a woman who owed them money and whom they had allegedly exploited through forced prostitution and physical abuse.
• The deceased’s body was discovered in a suitcase by a roadside; forensic evidence confirmed the cause of death as asphyxia due to neck compression and blunt force trauma to the head.
• The Prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" doctrine, the discovery of the deceased's DNA at the appellants' residence, and a false police report lodged by the first appellant shortly after the body was found.

• Whether the trial judge’s failure to specify the precise limb of Section 300 of the Penal Code at the prima facie stage and the improper admission of a witness statement containing an admission of guilt necessitated appellate intervention.
• Whether evidence regarding the appellants' abusive relationship with the deceased was inadmissible as "bad character" evidence under Section 54 of the Evidence Act 1950 or admissible under the doctrine of *res gestae*.
• Whether the second appellant’s active participation in compressing the body into a suitcase, transporting it, and orchestrating a cover-up was sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code.

• The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that under Section 167 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the conviction remained safe as the admissible circumstantial evidence formed an irresistible chain of guilt.
• The Court ruled that evidence of the abusive relationship was admissible under Sections 8, 9, and 14 of the Evidence Act 1950 to establish motive and animus, while the deceased's statements to a witness were admissible under Section 6 as part of the same transaction.
• The Court affirmed the death sentence, exercising its discretion under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, citing the extreme brutality of the crime, the prolonged torture of the victim, and the need for public denunciation of such depravity.