[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] 1. ) MOHD RAZEF BIN MOHAMED HARIP 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRULIMAN BIN JOHARI

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] 1. ) MOHD RAZEF BIN MOHAMED HARIP 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRULIMAN BIN JOHARI

Prosecution did not prove a prima facie case because it failed to show that the accused ever requested RM40,000 or engaged in overt acts directed to consummating cheating; material gaps existed (incomplete forensic report and failure to call material witness Dato' Mohd Faridz) giving rise to adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act; on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent, therefore accused were discharged and acquitted without calling defence.

Citation
JF-83-587-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Razef bin Mohamed Harip; Accused: Muhammad Shahruliman bin Johari; Accused: Muhammad Nurhasif bin Abd. Karim
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 December 2023
Case Number
JF-83-587-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Cheating (attempt) / End of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie Established)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; no prima facie case established
Legal Topics
Cheating (section 420 Penal Code), Attempt (section 511 Penal Code), Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code), Adverse Inference (section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950), Prima Facie Burden (criminal Procedure), Forensic Phone Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Forensic Digital Evidence Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) Attempt (section 511 Penal Code) Common Intention (section 34 Penal Code) Adverse Inference (section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Razef bin Mohamed Harip

Accused

Muhammad Shahruliman bin Johari

Accused

Muhammad Nurhasif bin Abd. Karim

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Cheating (attempt) / End of Prosecution Case (no Prima Facie Established)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused attempted to commit cheating under Section 420 read with Section 511 and Section 34 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether there were overt acts directed to the commission of the offence
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution closed gaps in its case by calling necessary witnesses and tendering complete forensic phone evidence or whether Section 114(g) Evidence Act applies to draw an adverse inference

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution did not prove a prima facie case because it failed to show that the accused ever requested RM40,000 or engaged in overt acts directed to consummating cheating; material gaps existed (incomplete forensic report and failure to call material witness Dato' Mohd Faridz) giving rise to adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act; on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent, therefore accused were discharged and acquitted without calling defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; no prima facie case established

Orders

  • Accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence
  • Bail monies for all accused to be returned