MOHD FAUZI BIN ABU BAKAR

MOHD FAUZI BIN ABU BAKAR

Appeal dismissed because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: identification evidence was unreliable (fleeting sighting, poor lighting, goggles, flawed kawad cam with non‑compliant participants and no supporting forensic evidence), and an unamended incorrect charge date caused confusion and prejudice to the respondent’s defence, together rendering conviction unsafe; magistrate’s discharge and acquittal therefore upheld.

Citation
KA-41LB-6-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (prosecutor): Pendakwa Raya; Respondent (accused): Mohd Fauzi bin Abu Bakar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 May 2024
Case Number
KA-41LB-6-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (s.448 Kanun Keseksaan) / Determination on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's decision to discharge and acquit respondent upheld
Legal Topics
Identification Parade (kawad Cam), Witness Identification, Alibi Notice, Defective Charge, Intention (mens Rea), Criminal Trespass (s.448 Kk)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Identification Parade (kawad Cam) Witness Identification Alibi Notice Defective Charge Intention (mens Rea) +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant (prosecutor)

Mohd Fauzi bin Abu Bakar

Respondent (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (s.448 Kanun Keseksaan) / Determination on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Reliability of witness identification and compliance with identification parade procedure
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved intention to commit an offence
  3. 3 Validity and effect of alibi notice and timing

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: identification evidence was unreliable (fleeting sighting, poor lighting, goggles, flawed kawad cam with non‑compliant participants and no supporting forensic evidence), and an unamended incorrect charge date caused confusion and prejudice to the respondent’s defence, together rendering conviction unsafe; magistrate’s discharge and acquittal therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's decision to discharge and acquit respondent upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Magistrate to discharge and acquit the respondent without calling him to enter his defence is upheld