MOHD SHAMIM BIN HASHIM

MOHD SHAMIM BIN HASHIM

The prosecution failed to prove element three (driving without due care/entering opposite lane) on a prima facie standard because the case depended on circumstantial evidence that did not exclude reasonable alternative explanations (deceased impairment, lack of eyewitness/CCTV, absence of forensic reconstruction and braking evidence); therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged under section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code.

Citation
KE-82-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Mohd Shamim bin Hashim
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 October 2025
Case Number
KE-82-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Road Traffic (section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987) / End of Prosecution Case Decision Under Section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code (discharge)
Outcome
Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case; accused released and discharged under section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code (not called to enter defence).
Legal Topics
Culpable Driving Causing Death, Prima Facie Case, Circumstantial Evidence, Toxicology Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Forensic Evidence Culpable Driving Causing Death Prima Facie Case Circumstantial Evidence Toxicology Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Mohd Shamim bin Hashim

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Road Traffic (section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987) / End of Prosecution Case Decision Under Section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code (discharge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under section 43(1) Road Transport Act 1987;
  2. 2 Whether evidence shows accused drove without due care and attention or into the opposite lane;
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial evidence presented excludes all reasonable alternative explanations, including impairment or loss of control by deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove element three (driving without due care/entering opposite lane) on a prima facie standard because the case depended on circumstantial evidence that did not exclude reasonable alternative explanations (deceased impairment, lack of eyewitness/CCTV, absence of forensic reconstruction and braking evidence); therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged under section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code.

Court Disposition

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case; accused released and discharged under section 180(3) Criminal Procedure Code (not called to enter defence).

Orders

  • Accused MOHD SHAMIM BIN HASHIM discharged and acquitted under section 180(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; no plea required.