PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) YUVANRAJ A/L ARUMUGAM 2. ) HARISHWARAN A/L KHISO KUMAR
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Section 39B(1)(a) – Trafficking in 8,805.90 grams of cannabis – Section 6 – Possession of 49.30 grams of cannabis – Close of prosecution case – Prima facie standard – Requirement for maximum evaluation of evidence – Whether credible evidence proved each ingredient of the charges. EVIDENCE: Statutory Presumptions – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 – Sections 37(d) and 37(da) – Prosecution seeking to invoke a presumption of trafficking based on a presumption of possession – Stacking of presumptions – Whether impermissible in law – Muhammad bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor applied. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Common Intention – Penal Code Section 34 – Joint charge for trafficking – Whether mere presence at the scene is sufficient – Lack of evidence regarding a pre-arranged plan or shared criminal intention. EVIDENCE: Witness Credibility – Principal prosecution witness (Arresting Officer) – Fundamental unreliability – Falsehood told under oath regarding the assault of a handcuffed prisoner – Assault proved by CCTV footage – Undocumented removal of property from searched premises – Material discrepancies between oral testimony and contemporaneous documents regarding the location of arrest. EVIDENCE: Adverse Inference – Evidence Act 1950 Section 114(g) – Prosecution’s failure to call or offer material witnesses (identified as the actual owners/traffickers) – Suppression of CCTV footage covering the critical window of arrest and drug discovery – Failure to produce the mandatory POL-31 Form – Failure to investigate a formal Defence Report naming other suspects. EVIDENCE: Chain of Custody – Deficiencies in documentation – Search List not prepared at the scene and lacking seizure time – Breach of Section 64 Criminal Procedure Code – Government Chemist’s inability to confirm exhibits corresponded to those seized without the POL-31 Form. CRIMINAL LAW: Knowledge and Possession – Drugs found in a closed, non-transparent box – Prosecution’s burden to establish knowledge of contents – Whether the Radhi Direction applied – Accused as innocent carriers – Documentary evidence suggesting drugs belonged to a third party.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-45a-36-03-2022)