PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya MUHAMMAD FAIDZULLAH BIN ABDULLAH

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya MUHAMMAD FAIDZULLAH BIN ABDULLAH

Because the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies (notably conflicting dates of injury) and the prosecution failed to call a material eyewitness (the child) without adequate explanation, adverse inference under s.114(g) was applicable and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the accused was acquitted.

Citation
A-85-207-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Muhammad Faidzullah bin Abdullah
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 February 2021
Case Number
A-85-207-09/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial — Judgment at Close of Defence (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Assault, Grievous Hurt (s 323, S 326 a Penal Code), Prima Facie Test, Burden of Proof, Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness (s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Medical Report Weight and Inconsistencies
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Assault Grievous Hurt (s 323, S 326 a Penal Code) Prima Facie Test Burden of Proof Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness (s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhammad Faidzullah bin Abdullah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial — Judgment at Close of Defence (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved prima facie case under sections 323/326A Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies in prosecution evidence (dates, medical report) negate proof beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether failure to call material eyewitness (child) permits adverse inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 and results in acquittal

Ratio Decidendi

Because the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies (notably conflicting dates of injury) and the prosecution failed to call a material eyewitness (the child) without adequate explanation, adverse inference under s.114(g) was applicable and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Accused Muhammad Faidzullah bin Abdullah is acquitted and discharged of the charges under sections 323/326A Penal Code
  • Bail money to be returned to the accused