MOHD ADI HASARLI BIN ARIFFIN

MOHD ADI HASARLI BIN ARIFFIN

Prosecution failed to call and/or investigate identified material public witnesses (Syaminuddin and Ragavan) creating a material gap such that prima facie case under s41(1) was not proved; absence/non-production of CCTV was not fatal where CCTV did not exist or was unclear; however admitted facts and prosecution evidence sufficed to establish an offence under s43(1) (driving without due care and attention), permitting amendment of the charge under s158 CPC and conviction under s43(1).

Citation
AA-83-7-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Adi Hasarli bin Ariffin
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Case Number
AA-83-7-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing (post Prosecution Appeal/notice of Appeal)
Outcome
Original charge under s41(1) not proven; charge amended to s43(1) Road Transport Act 1987; accused convicted under s43(1) and sentenced.
Legal Topics
Causing Death by Dangerous/reckless Driving, Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Charge Amendment Under Procedural Code, Failure to Call Public Witnesses, Adverse Inference S114(g) Evidence Act, CCTV Evidence Disclosure
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Causing Death by Dangerous/reckless Driving Driving Without Due Care and Attention Charge Amendment Under Procedural Code Failure to Call Public Witnesses Adverse Inference S114(g) Evidence Act +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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Adi Hasarli bin Ariffin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing (post Prosecution Appeal/notice of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 at close of its case
  2. 2 Whether prosecution's failure to call identified public witnesses and produce CCTV footage gives rise to adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether the omission to call or investigate public witnesses created a material gap in the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to call and/or investigate identified material public witnesses (Syaminuddin and Ragavan) creating a material gap such that prima facie case under s41(1) was not proved; absence/non-production of CCTV was not fatal where CCTV did not exist or was unclear; however admitted facts and prosecution evidence sufficed to establish an offence under s43(1) (driving without due care and attention), permitting amendment of the charge under s158 CPC and conviction under s43(1).

Court Disposition

Original charge under s41(1) not proven; charge amended to s43(1) Road Transport Act 1987; accused convicted under s43(1) and sentenced.

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987
  • Imprisonment 1 day from date of conviction