[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series

IN THE COUT O! "##E"L O! $"L"%SI"

&"##ELL"TE 'UIS(ICTION)
[CI$IN"L "##E"L NO* #+0,+306+2010]
-ET.EEN
#U-LIC #OSECUTO / "##ELL"NT
"N(
OO -OON 0HI$ / ES#ON(ENTS
[I1 t2e 3atter o4 5ri3i1al re4ere15e 1o* 6,+16+2008
I1 t2e Hig2 Co7rt o4 $ala8a i1 #e1a1g]
-etwee1
#U-LIC #OSECUTO
"19
OO -OON 0HI$
COU$*
":"H" -IN $OH"$E(; 'C"
OH"N" -INTI %USU!; 'C"
H"$I( SULT"N -IN "-U -"C0E; 'C"
Ha3i 9 S7l t a1 -i 1 "<7 -a5ker; 'C" & (el i =eri 1g '79g3e1t o4 T2e
Co7rt )
1
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
>OUN(S O! 'U(>$ENT
[1] The prosecutions appeal against the respondent in respect of the
acquittal of a trafficking charge after the end of the defence case came
up for hearing on 16-07-2013 and on the same day we heard the appeal
and dismissed it !y learned "rother #$ahar "in !ohamed %&# and my
learned sister 'ohana "inti (usuf %&# ha)e read the *udgment and
appro)ed the same This is our *udgment
[2] Two persons ie+ the respondent ,1
st
accused- and one female "y the
name .ng /ooi 0an ,2
nd
accused- were charged for trafficking The
charge read as follows1
?-a2awa ka37 <ersa3a+sa3a @a9a 26A01A200B Ca3 le<i2
k7ra1g 9A,0 3ala3; <erte3@at 9i ala3at NoA 23;
Li1ta1g -at7 $a71g; Ta3a1 I@i1g; -a8a1 Le@as; 9i
9ala3 (aera2 -arat (a8a; 9i 9ala3 1egeri #7la7
#i1a1g; 9e1ga1 1iat <ersa3a 3e3@ere9arka1 9a9a2
<er<a2a8a seC73la2 <erat 166, gra3 &Heroi1 se<erat
1180A3 gra3 9a1 $o1oa5et8l3or@2i1es se<erat 286AB
gra3) 9a1 9e1ga1 it7 ka37 tela2 3elak7ka1 sat7
kesala2a1 9i <awa2 Seks8e1 39-&1)&a) "kta (a9a2
-er<a2a8a 19,2 9a1 <ole2 9i27k73 9i <awa2 Seks8e1
39-&2) "kta 8a1g sa3a 9i<a5a <ersa3a Seks8e1 36
0a171 0eseksaa1AD
2
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
[3] The 2
nd
accused was acquitted and discharged at the end of the
prosecution case #nd the prosecution had preferred an appeal to the
&ourt of #ppeal which was struck out on the date of hearing of this
appeal
[6] The respondent was asked to enter defence to an amended charge
which reads as follows1
?-a2awa ka37 @a9a 26 'a17ari 200B Ca3 le<i2 k7ra1g
9A,0 3ala3; <erte3@at 9i ala3at NoA 23; Li1ta1g -at7
$a71g; Ta3a1 I@i1g tela2 3e1ge9ar 9a9a2 <er<a2a8a
iait7 seC73la2 <erat 166, gra3 9a1 9e1ga1 it7 ka37
tela2 3elak7ka1 sat7 kesala2a1 9i <awa2 Seks8e1
39-&1)&a) "(- 8a1g <ole2 9i27k73 9i <awa2 Seks8e1
39-&2) "kta 8a1g sa3aAD
[,] #t the end of the defence case the respondent was acquitted and
discharged 2ence+ this appeal "y the prosecution
-rie4 !a5ts
[6] 3ased on the information the police raided a house and found two
persons i e+ t he respondent and t he 2
n d
accused and al so found drugs
and paraphernalia and also "oth were the sole occupiers of the house at
t he mat eri al t i me 4hat i s i mport ant t o not e i n t hi s case i s t hat on t he
same day and at t he mat eri al t i me a person "y t he name of 5unny was
al so arrest ed out si de t he house when he was at t empt i ng t o ent er t he
house wi t h a l arge quant i t y of chocol at e col oured caffei ne whi ch i s a
component t o enhance t he quant i t y of t he dr ugs The pr osecut i on di d
3
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
not produce 5unny despite 6#lcontara 7otice ha)ing "een gi)en+ to say
the drugs "elonged to 5unny The learned trial *udge has captured the
e)idence of the respondent at pages 86 and 87 which read as follows1
Pada 26/01/2007 jam lebih kurang 9.50 malam semasa
saya berada di alamat No. 2 !intang "atu #aung$ %aman
&'ing$ "ayan !e'as saya telah ditangka' oleh 'olis. Pada
masa dan hari tersebut 'ihak 'olis mengatakan mereka ada
jum'a bebera'a bungkusan di dalam rumah. (Peguam)
*ambar P717 (+, dirujuk ke'ada saksi,. -aya tidak tahu
a'akah yang t erkandung dal am bungkusan.bungkusan
yang dijum'ai itu. -ebelum saya ditangka' oleh 'olis$ saya
Nam'ak -unny yang letakkan bungkusan.bungkusan itu
disitu. -aya tidak 'asti nama 'enuh -unny kerana saya
'anggil dia -unny. /ia adalah seorang lelaki 0ina. -aya
kenali -unny kerana saya 'ernah membeli ra1un serangga
dari'ada -unny. Pada masa -unny letakkan bungkusan.
bungkusan itu di ruang da'ur$ saya tidak tahu bungkusan.
bungkusan itu mengandungi dadah. Pada jam lebih kurang
9.50 malam$ bila 'olis datang dan ketuk 'intu saya telah
membuka 'intu se'erti yang diarahkan. Polis ada masuk
dan menggeledah rumah dan memeriksa bungkusan.
bungkusan tersebut. -ele'as memeriksa bungkusan.
bungkusan tersebut$ 'olis ada memberitahu saya
bungkusan. bungkusan i t u bukan ke'unyaan saya t a'i
-unny yang ba2a masuk ke dalam rumah. -aya ada
beritahu 'olis jika tidak 'er1aya mereka boleh tunggu
hi ngga -unny sam'ai . -unny ada di t angka' ol eh 'i hak
'olis 'ada 'etang tersebut. #asa -unny ditangka' dia ada
9
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
ba2a bersama bebera'a bungkusan. -ebel um t ari kh
kej adi an$ saya ada sel i si h 3 aham sedi ki t dengan -unny
kerana masal ah 2ang. "arangan dal am bungkusan i t u
semuanya ke'unyaan -unny. #asa saya di ba2a ke
hada'an maj i st ret unt uk remand saya t el ah kat a saya
bersedi a unt uk mengakui at as kesal ahan. -aya berbuat
demi ki an unt uk membant u 45%2$ 4ng 5ooi !an su'aya
da'at di l e'askan. 6
[B] The learned trial *udge had considered the defence in the right
perspect i )e and accept ed t he same t o ha)e creat ed a reasona"l e dou"t
i n hi s mi nd "ased on t he pri nci pl es st at ed i n 'adhi s di rect i on+ and
acquitted and discharged the same 2owe)er+ the learned :eputy ;u"lic
;rosecutor complains on the acquittal
[8] The appellants !emorandum of #ppeal inter alia reads as follows1
1 (ang #rif ;esuruh*aya /ehakiman telah terkhilaf dari segi
undang-undang dan fakta apa"ila memutuskan "ahawa pihak
pendakwaan telah gagal mem"uktikan kes melampaui keraguan
yang munasa"ah di "awah 5eksyen 3<3,1-,a- #kta :adah
3er"ahaya 1<82 di akhir kes pem"elaan sedangkan terdapat
keterangan yang mencukupi dan kukuh untuk mensa"itkan
'esponden terhadap keselahan
2 (ang #rif ;esuruh*aya /ehakiman telah terkhilaf dari segi
undang-undang dan fakta apa"ila memutuskan di mukasurat
77+ 'e kod 'a yua n % i l i d = + pe r e ngga n > 7<? + "a r i s ke <+
. . . 5egagalan 'ihak 'endak2aan memanggil Ng -unny atau
8
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
memba2a keterangan 'enyangkalan (rebuttal, bagi
menjelaskan 'erkara ini telah menjadikan kes 'endak2aan
ter1abar dan berjaya disangkal oleh tertuduh. Pihak
'endak2aan mem'unyai segala butiran ke atas 'enama Ng
-unny teta'i tidak terda'at a'a.a'a usaha yang e3ekti3 bagi
menda'atkan Ng -unny. Ng -unny juga tidak dita2arkan
ke'ada 'ihak 'embelaan. Pihak 'endak2aan juga tidak
mengemukakan 'er1aka'an dalam 'enyiasan di ba2ah
seksyen 112 5anun %ata1ara 7enayah oleh Ng -unny menurut
seksyen 2(i, 8kta 5eterangan$ 19506 sedangkan kes
pendakwaan adalah lengkap dan ter"ukti tanpa perlu
memanggil saksi ini .leh itu seksyen 119,g- #kta /eterangan
1<80 tidak terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan
3 (ang #rif ;esuruh*aya /ehakiman telah terkhilaf dari segi
undang-undang dan fakta apa"ila memutuskan di mukasurat
7@+ 'ekod 'ayhuan %ilid 1+ "aris ke 2 ... #ahkamah
ber'enda'at kehadiran tertuduh di dalam rumah itu tidak
memadai untuk mengatakan beliau mem'unyai milikan ke atas
dadah tersebut. %iada a'a.a'a 9o:ert a1t6 yang lain yang da'at
melibatkan 'erlakuan tertuduh sebagai 'unyai 'engetahuan ke
atas dadah tersebut6 yang mana kesimpulan terse"ut
"ersalahan dengan fakta kes yang di"uktikan oleh pihak
pendakwaan dalam kes ini
9 (ang #rif ;esuruh*aya /ehakiman telah terkhilaf dari segi
undang-undang dan fakta apa"ila memutuskan di mukasurat
7@+ 'ekod 'ayuan %ilid 1+ "aris ke 7 dari "awah /i dalam kes
di hada'an #ahkamah i ni sat u. sat unya ket erangan yang
6
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
terda'at yang dikatakan sebagai o:ert a1t6 oleh %P; ialah
a'abila tertuduh 'ertama ini dikatakan mengambil masa 5 minit
untuk membuka 'intu rumah setelah diketuk oleh -P7. <alau
bagaimana'un$ tiada keterangan di mana tertuduh.tertuduh
berada dirumah itu semasa 'intu diketuk dan oleh itu
#ahkamah tidak boleh membuat in3erens terhada'nya se'erti
yang di'ohonkan oleh %P; yang bijaksana6 sedangkan
kesimpulan tere"ut "ertentangan dengan prinsip undang-
undang yang dinyatakan dalam kes *unalan ;ama1handran :.
PP >2009? 9 &0% 881
8 (ang #rif ;esuruh*aya /ehakiman telah terkhilaf dari segi
undang-undang dan fakta apa"ila memutuskan di mukasurat
7<+ 'ekod 'ayuan %ilikd 1+ 3aris pertama #ahkamah juga di
'eringkat kes 'endak2aan telah tidak menerima sebagai suatu
o:ert a1t6 oleh kedua.dua tertuduh yang dikatakan berada
dalam gementar dan ketakutan a'abila terda'atnya 'olis di
rumah itu$ yang mana #ahkamah ini telah menjelaskannya di
a2al 'enghakiman ini6 sedangkan ianya tertentangan dengan
prinsip undang-undang yang diputuskan dalam kes Parlan bin
/adeh :. PP >200<? 1 &0% 717
[9] =n the instant case the main issue is not whether there was a 'rima
3 a1i e case at t he end of t he prosecut i on case "ut whet her t he defence
had re"ut t ed t he charge of t raffi cki ng =n consequence t he pet i t i on of
appeal and the complaint raise has no merit 4e will ela"orate this issue
further in the *udgment
7
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
[10] =t is now well settled that the threshold requirement to re"ut the
charge of trafficking is low+ as propounded "y a num"er of cases which
had considered 'adhis direction as well as the case of -o1hima 4koye
:. Publi1 Prose1utor >1<<8? 1 !0% 83@ >see ;o=mi bin >uso3 :. PP >2013?
9 &0% 3@9A 8hmad #ukammal bin 8bdul <ahab ? ors :. PP >2013? 9 &0%
<9<?
[11] #s long as the story of the accused is not inherently incredi"le the
court has to test the story with that of the prosecution and if it creates a
reasona"le dou"t in the mind of the *udge it is sufficient to earn an
acquittal The test whether the story is capa"le of "eing accepted as not
"eing inherently incredi"le must necessarily "e one that demonstrates
6plausi"le eBplanation to earn an acquittal The 6plausi"le eBplanation
proposition was ad)ocated as early as 1<@1+ in the ;ri)y &ouncil
decision of 4ng 8h 0huan :. PP >1<@1? 1 !0% 69 where 0ord :iplock had
this to say1
Proo3 o3 the 'ur'ose 3or 2hi1h an a1t is done$ 2here su1h 'ur'ose is
a ne1essary ingredient o3 the o33en1e 2ith 2hi1h an a11used is
1harged$ 'resents a 'roblem 2ith 2hi1h 1riminal 1ourts are :ery
3amiliar. *enerally$ in the absen1e o3 an e@'ress admission by the
a11used$ the 'ur'ose 2ith 2hi1h he did an a1t is a matter o3 in3eren1e
3rom 2hat he did. %hus$ in the 1ase o3 an a11used 1aught in the a1t o3
1on:eying 3rom one 'la1e to another 1ontrolled drugs in a Auantity
mu1h larger than is likely to be needed 3or his o2n 1onsum'tion the
in3eren1e that he 2as trans'orting them 3or the 'ur'ose o3 tra33i1king in
them 2ould$ in the absen1e o3 any plausible e@'lanation by him $ be
irresistible . e:en i3 there 2ere no statutory 'resum'tion su1h as is
1ontained in se1tion 15 o3 the /rugs 81t.6 (em'hasis added,.
@
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
[12] =n the instant case there was no direct neBus to the drugs and the
respondent #nd )ery importantly there was no e)idence incriminating
the respondent eBcept the fact that he was the occupier where the drugs
were found The learned :eputy ;u"lic ;rosecutor s argument of
knowledge+ eBclusi)ity+ o)ert act+ etcA and reliance of cases such as PP
:. 8bdul ;ahman bin 8ki3 >2007? 9 &0% 337+ PP :. /enish #adha:an
>200<? 2 &0% 20<+ etc are good only to esta"lish a 'rima 3a1ie case
.nce the defence is called all the a"o)e cases actually "ecome
redundant and the sole issue for the court to determine is whether there
was 6plausi"le eBplanation "y the accused to create a reasona"le dou"t
in the prosecutions case to earn an acquittal and satisfy the court that
the defence has re"utted the charge of trafficking ,emphasis added-
[13] 4hen the sole issue is in relation to the accused defence+ the
petition of appeal of the prosecution must actually demonstrate where
and how the learned *udge failed in the assessment of the defence case
=n the instant case the petition of appeal has failed to address the issue
and in consequence it is fatal
[16] 5unny was not made a)aila"le as a witness and the defence story
was placed at the earliest opportunity and the prosecution has not made
any attempt to re"ut the defence )ersion as ad)ocated in 8l1ontara a/l
8mbross :. PP >1<<6? 1 &0% 708 >5ee #unus2amy -undar ;aja :. PP
>2013? 8 !0% 9@? Taking the factual matriB of the case as a whole and
the a"undance of case law on the issues raised in the petition any
reasona"le tri"unal properly directed in our considered )iew will ha)e
come to the same conclusion as that of the learned *udge
<
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
[1,] =t is well settled that it is in the hands of triers of facts to assess the
quality of e)idence and to determine whether the e)idence on record
* ust i f i es a con)i ct i on as wel l as sent ence 4e ha)e per used t he
e)i dence i n detail and we are satisfied that the )iew taken "y the trial
court on the rele)ant issues in our )iew was a reasona"le )iew of the
e)idence on record+ and the court had followed 'adhis direction and
rightly applied the maBimum e)aluation and "eyond reasona"le test and
acquitted the respondent
[16] 4e are of the considered )iew it is a safe decision and appellate
inter)ention is not warranted and the appeal has no merit #ccordingly
we dismiss the appeal
4e here"y order so
(ate9* 27 5C;TC!3C' 2013
&H"$I( SULT"N "-U -"C0E)
%udge
&ourt of #ppeal
!alaysia
Note) *rounds o3 7udgment subje1t to 1orre1tion o3 error and editorial
adjustment et1$.
Bor the a''ellant . 8hmad "a1hee
Tim"alan ;endakwa 'aya
%a"atan ;eguam 7egara
;utra*aya
10
[2013] 1 LNS 986 Legal Network Series
Bor the res'ondent . 8meenuddin &brahimC #s 8meen Darbhajan ? 0o
/uala 0umpur
11