MOHD AZIZI BIN MD SAID

JA-83RS-431-09/2023 Kand. 30 28/12/2024 22:26:58 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA KES JENAYAH NO.: JA-83RS-431-09/2023 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN MOHD AZIZI BIN MD SAID (No. Kad Pengenalan: 920717015333) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Mohd Azizi bin Md Said [OKT] telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan pindaan sebagaimana berikut: PERTUDUHAN PINDAAN: Bahawa kamu di pada 30 ogos 2023 jam 12.15 petang, di tempat letak Motosikal Legoland, Aras LG-2, Legoland, Iskandar Puteri, di dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah didapati memindahkan harta curi iaitu sebuah sebuah motosikal Yamaha 135LC warna hitam no. pendaftaran JKA 4486 no.casis : pmykg018060013125 no. Enjin: g349ee013125 kepunyaan Mohamad Azdlizam bin Zul Bahary No. Kad Pengenalan : 880421-23-5325, yang mana kamu tahu ada sebab mempercayai bahawa barang tersebut adalah harta curi. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan dan boleh di hukum dibawah sek 414 Kanun Keseksaan. 1 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HUKUMAN Bersabit kesalahan, boleh dihukum penjara tidak kurang dari enam bulan dan tidak lebih dari tujuh tahun, dan hendaklah dikenakan denda. [2] Pertuduhan telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada OKT di dalam Bahasa Malaysia, OKT faham pertuduhan dan mohon dibicarakan terhadap pertuduhan tersebut. [3] Mahkamah ini pada 18.11.2024, setelah meneliti keterangan saksi- saksi pendakwaan dan hujahan kedua-dua belah pihak, telah memerintahkan OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan tanpa perlu dipanggil membela diri. Pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya telah tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini dan merayu kepada Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap keputusan tersebut. Kes Pihak Pendakwaan [4] Pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai 4 orang saksi untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah di Mahkamah ini untuk membuktikan kes terhadap OKT iaitu:- a) Mohamad Azdlizam Bin Zul Bahary (Pengadu @ SP1); b) Insp Mohd Hafizzam Bin Semain (Pegawai Tangkapan @ SP2); c) Hafezi Bin Kassim (Saksi Awam @ SP3); dan d) Sjn Zetti Haryantika Binti Hassan (Pegawai Penyiasat @ SP4). [5] Fakta kes pihak pendakwaan adalah seperti berikut: 2 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal a. Pada 23/06/2023 jam lebih kurang 8.40 malam, Pengadu [SP1] menyatakan dia telah meletakkan motosikal miliknya yang bernombor pendaftaran JKA 4486 di kawasan tempat letak kenderaan motosikal Aeon Bandar Dato Onn, Jalan Dato Onn. b. Namun, pada hari yang sama, pada jam lebih kurang 11 malam, SP1 mendapati motosikalnya telah tiada di tempat letak motosikal tersebut dan menyedari bahawa dia tertinggal kunci motosikalnya pada motosikal tersebut. SP1 telah melaporkan kehilangan motosikalnnya di balai Bandar Dato Onn sebagaimana report P1. c. Pada 30/08/2023 jam lebih kurang 12.15 petang, pegawai tangkapan [SP2] telah mendapat maklumat terdapat 2 kenderaan yang mempunyai nombor pendaftaran yang sama, telah pergi ke Hotel Legoland. Setibanya di sana, SP2 telah menahan OKT. d. Kemudian, dengan dipandu arah oleh OKT, SP2 telah pergi ke tempat letak motosikal Legoland iaitu di Aras LG-2, Legoland, Iskandar Puteri, Johor. Setibanya di sana, OKT telah menunjukkan sebuah motosikal jenis Yamaha 135LC, berwarna hitam dengan No Pendaftaran VFR 5100. OKT kemudian telah menyerahkan satu anak kunci motosikal yang tertera ‘Yamaha’ kepada SP2. e. SP2 telah membawa OKT bersama motosikal tersebut ke IPD Iskandar Puteri. SP2 telah membuat semakan kompol PDRM 3 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ke atas motosikal tersebut berdasarkan No Chasis dan mendapati motorsikal tersebut telah dilaporkan hilang bersabit Repot BDO/4445/23 dan telah memaklumkan SP4. f. Seterusnya, SP2 telah menangkap OKT dan merampas motosikal tersebut berserta anak kunci motosikal. SP2 telah menyediakan Borang Geledah sebagai bukti rampasan dan ditandatangani oleh OKT. [6] Di peringkat ini, tahap pembuktian adalah pada peringkat ‘prima facie’ sebagaimana yang termaktub di dalam Seksyen 173(h) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan sepertimana yang digariskan di dalam kes Balachandran v PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301 yang mana pendakwaan hendaklah membuktikan kepada Mahkamah bahawa intipati kesalahan seperti dalam pertuduhan telah dibuktikan tanpa keraguan yang dinyatakan seperti berikut: “The test at the close of the prosecution case would be; Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case. [7] Mahkamah perlu memutuskan sama ada satu kes prima facie telah berjaya dibuktikan sebagaimana pertuduhan di akhir kes pendakwaan. Keputusan tersebut hendaklah dibuat setelah mahkamah membuat 4 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal penelitian dan penilaian maksima ke atas keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. [8] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 di ms. 467 memutuskan bahawa: [15] For the guidance of the courts below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution's case: (i) the close of the prosecution's case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution's witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is "Yes", then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is "No" then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted; (iii) after the defence is called, the accused elects to remain silent, then convict; 5 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (iv) after defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then go through the steps set out in Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82: [1963] MLJ 263. [9] Di dalam kes Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82, Hakim Suffian (pada masa itu) telah menggariskan kedudukan atau prinsip yang berikut: The position may be conveniently stated as follows: (a) If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt... Convict (b) If you accept or believe the accused's explanation... Acquit. (c) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation... Do not convict but consider the next steps below. (d) lf you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation and that explanation does not raise in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt?... Convict. (e) lf you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation but nevertheless it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt... Acquit. [10] Seksyen 414 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan bahawa: Menolong menyembunyikan harta curi. Barang siapa dengan sengaja menolong menyembunyikan atau memindahkan atau menghapuskan apa-apa harta yang ia ketahui atau ada sebab mempercayai sebagai harta curi, hendaklah diseksa dengan penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai tujuh tahun, atau dengan kedua-duanya; dan jika harta curi itu sebuah kenderaan motor atau mana-mana bahagian komponen sebuah 6 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal kenderaan motor sebagaimana yang ditakrifkan dalam seksyen 379A, hendaklah diseksa dengan penjara selama tempoh tidak kurang dari enam bulan dan tidak lebih dari tujuh tahun, dan bolehlah juga dikenakan denda. [11] Berdasarkan peruntukan di atas, berikut merupakan elemen- elemen pembuktian kes: a) OKT dengan sengaja menolong menyembunyikan atau memindahkan atau menghapuskan harta curi; dan b) OKT mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai bahawa harta tersebut adalah harta curi. Dapatan Dan Analisis Mahkamah di Peringkat Kes Pendakwaan Pertuduhan adalah cacat [12] Sebelum Mahkamah melihat secara mendalam terhadap elemen- elemen pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 414 Kanun Keseksaan tersebut, Mahkamah ini memilih untuk terlebih dahulu meneliti pertuduhan yang dikemukakan terhadap OKT.Mahkamah mendapati terdapat ketinggalan terhadap perkataan ‘dengan sengaja menolong’ daripada pertuduhan tersebut dimana ketinggalan tersebut merupakan elemen penting yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 414 Kanun Keseksaan. [13] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes TAY LEONG SIAK v PP [2002] MLJU 197; “On my part, it is necessary and advisable to hark back to first principles in criminal law and procedure. The charge states that the 7 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal accused “telah dengan curangnya memiliki” (or English translation reads “was dishonestly in possession of”). In my view, the charge appears to be out of focus because the offence created under the said s.411 is “dengan curangnya menerima atau menyimpan” (or in English, “dishonestly receives or retains”). The said s.411 makes no mention whatsoever of possession. The words enacted in the said s.411 creating the offence are crucial and significant. It is trite law that the charge in question must be precisely formulated to include the specific accusation against the accused who has the right to know and must have notice of the very nature of the charge at the first opportunity,so that the accused is forewarned with clarity and certainty the essential elements or ingredients that the prosecution has to establish against him in order to ensure that he can be forearmed in his defence for the purpose of directing all the evidence exclusively to the specific charge. It is true that s.156 of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap.6) (“CPC”) states that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and that no omission tostate the offence or those particulars shall be regarded, at any stage of the case, as material unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission. S.156 of the CPC was invoked e.g.: (1) in Saw Tuan Cheong v Public Prosecutor [1946] 12 MLJ 143, where the accused was not misled; (2) in Low Seng Wah v Public Prosecutor [1962] 28 MLJ 107, where there was no miscarriage of justice; 8 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (3) in Abdul Hamid bin Udin v Public Prosecutor [2000] 6 MLJ 334 where the wrong section i.e. s.12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was stated in the charge when it should be s.6 ofthe same Act, which was held to be curable under s.422 of the CPC; (4) in Lee A Ba v The Public Prosecutor [No. 36 of 1966] reported in Public Prosecutor v Oie Hee Koi & Associated Appeals [1968] 1 MLJ 148, JCPC, where error in nomenclature was of no consequence; (5) in Zulkiflee bin Mohd Dom v Public Prosecutor [1997] 4 MLJ 161, where the omission to set out the particulars of deception practised on the complainant was not material; (6) in Pie Bin Chin v Public Prosecutor [1985] 1 MLJ 235, where the misdescription of the word “Federation” instead ofthe word “State” in the charge against the accused was held to be curable under s.422 of the CPC. In the instant case, the error or omission is substantial and material in that the offence under the said s.411 is one of dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property and not possession. The charge does not disclose an offence under the said s.411, as s.152(i) of the CPC has not been complied with. S.152(i) of the CPC provides that every charge under this Codeshall state the offence with which the accused is charged. This is a mandatory provision 9 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal and it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to particularise the charge sufficiently so that the accused has adequate notice thereof.” [14] Dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Ravindran a/l Ramasamy v PP menyatakan seperti berikut: “… It could also be noted that the ‘error’ alluded to in s 156 of the CPC is the error in stating the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and not the error in stating the ingredients of an offence. That important distinction, whether an error in stating the particulars or an error in stating the ingredients, must be drawn for the purposes of ss 156 and/or 422 of the CPC. This is because where it was an error or omission in stating the ingredients of an offence, it had been consistently held by the courts that the accused would have been misled and that there must have been a failure of justice.” [15] Selanjutnya, merujuk kepada kes Shawal Hj Mohd Yassin v PP [ 2006] 6 CLJ 392 yang diputuskan oleh YA Azahar Mohamed (pada ketika itu): “(2) Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CPC”) provides for a cure should there be any non-compliance with the technical provisions of law. That provisions could not be invoked in the case at hand in a situation where the charge was defective as disclosing no offence under the Act. There was no irregularity curable under s.156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Also, where a trial in the court below was conducted on the basis of a charge, which was defective as not disclosing an offence under the relevant section, it was an illegality which could not be cured by s.422 of the CPC. 10 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (3) The defect in the charge was in a matter of substance and not merely of form. This was not a mere technical non-compliance of any provisions of law, which could be condoned as an irregularity...” [16] Berdasarkan kepada prinsip kes-kes di atas, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah cacat kerana tidak menyatakan perkataan ‘dengan sengaja menolong’ yang merupakan intipati kesalahan seksyen 414 Kanun Keseksaan. Pertuduhan tersebut juga tidak mendedahkan kesalahan sebagaimana yang dikhususkan dalam peruntukan tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, kecacatan pertuduhan ini tidak boleh diselamatkan oleh s. 156 atau s. 422 KTJ. a. OKT dengan sengaja menolong memindahkan harta curi. OKT adalah Bona Fide Purchaser for Valuable Consideration [17] Mahkamah mendapati jalur pembelaan OKT menjurus menunjukkan dia adalah seorang bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Peguambela telah berhujah bahawa OKT telah membeli motosikal yang menjadi hal perkara dalam kes ini daripada SP 3 dengan harga diskaun sebanyak RM450.00 secara 2 ansuran iaitu: a) Ansuran pertama pada atau sekitar 23.06.2023 bagi jumlah sebanyak RM300.00 secara wang tunai; dan b) Ansuran kedua pada 10.07.2023 bagi jumlah sebanyak RM150.00 secara pemindahan dalam talian. 11 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [18] Peguambela dalam hujahannya memberitahu Mahkamah melalui surat tuntutan bertarikh 29.08.2024, OKT telah menuntut pemulangan jumlah tersebut daripada SP3, dan seterusnya OKT telah memfailkan saman sivil tersebut terhadap SP 3. Tuntutan wang tersebut telah dibayar oleh kakak kepada SP3 iaitu penama Hasliza Kasim bagi pihak SP3 dan kemudiannya OKT telah menarik balik saman tersebut terhadap SP 3. [19] Mahkamah mendapati terdapat juga surat menyurat oleh pihak peguambela OKT kepada Pejabat TPR memaklumkan berkenaan pembayaran tersebut dan meminta agar perkara tersebut disiasat lanjut oleh pegawai penyiasat. Mahkamah juga mendapati terdapat satu surat eksibit IDD16 daripada pejabat peguambela yang menegur pihak pegawai penyiasat berkenaan penarikan pembayaran balik wang oleh penama Hasliza Kasim [eksibit IDD13, IDD14, IDD15 dan IDD6 dirujuk]. [20] Sementara itu, SP3 pula dalam keterangannya di Mahkamah ini mengatakan bahawa pembayaran yang telah dibuat oleh OKT kepadanya adalah bayaran hutang dadah dan bukannya bayaran pembelian jual beli motosikal.SP3 menafikan pengetahuan berkenaan tuntutan sivil tersebut kerana pada waktu tersebut dia berada dalam tahanan penjara. [21] Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam menilai keterangan SP3 ini kerana naratif cerita pembelaan adalah OKT telah membeli motosikal yang menjadi hal perkara dalam kes ini daripada SP3. Perkara berkenaan transaksi jual beli ini tidak disiasat oleh SP4 secara terperinci walaupun SP4 ada memberi keterangan bahawa dia ada mengambil rakaman percakapan SP3.Namun demikian, SP3 telah memberi keterangan yang bercanggah di Mahkamah ini dimana SP3 mengatakan tidak pernah bertemu dengan SP4 untuk siasatan kes ini. 12 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [22] Berdasarkan naratif cerita pembelaan tersebut, Mahkamah berpendapat saksi bernama Ika Kasim tersebut merupakan saksi yang material untuk melengkapkan naratif kes ini iaitu untuk menjelaskan berkenaan pembayaran yang telahpun dibuat sebagaimana yang dituntut melalui surat tuntutan IDD13. Persoalan sama ada bayaran tersebut dibuat untuk membayar semula wang penjualan motosikal atas arahan SP3 ataupun sebaliknya sehingga ke akhirnya menjadi tanda tanya kepada Mahkamah ini. [23] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Rosli Yusof v Public Prosecutor [2021] 7 MLJ 681 seperti berikut: “[34] We accept the submission advanced by learned Deputy Public Prosecutor that the prosecution is solely responsible for deciding how to present its case and choosing which witnesses to call. The dictum of Lord Thankerton in the case of Adel Muhammed El Dabbah v Attorney General for Palestine [1944] AC 156 at pp 168– 9; [1944] 2 All ER 139 that ‘the court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, unless, perhaps it can be shown that the prosecutor has been influenced by some oblique motives’ has been followed and accepted by our courts. Having said that, we hasten to add that the discretion is not unfettered. The prosecution must exercise his or her power to choose which witness to call consistent with the requirement of fairness. He or she is under a duty to call all credible witnesses whose evidence is essential to fully presenting the narrative of the case. The obligation to call witnesses is sometimes expressed in terms of the prosecution’s duty to call ‘material witnesses’. ‘Material’ has a wide meaning and 13 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal in this context, it is evidence which is admissible and capable of influencing the court’s assessment of guilt or otherwise is capable of being material (see Dyers v R [2002] 210 CLR 285, [2002] HCA 45 at para [11]; and R v Manning [2017] QCA 23 at para [19]. Unless there is a good reason for not calling the witnesses, prosecutors should call all eye witnesses to the events constituting the alleged offence. (Emphasis added.) [24] Dalam hal ini kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi material telah menyebabkan kelompangan dalam kes pendakwaan dan membangkitkan anggapan buruk di bawah s 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950. [25] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Siew Yoke Keong v Public Prosecutor [2013] 3 MLJ 630 menjelaskan seperti berikut: “Anyway, in the context of s 114(g) of the Evidence Act, learned counsel’s submission brought into focus the issue of the prosecutorial discretion in the calling of witnesses in criminal prosecution. It is well settled that in a criminal case, the prosecution, provided that there is no wrong motive, has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called by it (see Khoon Chye Hin v Public Prosecutor [1961] MLJ 105 (CA), Adel Muhamed El Dabah v Attorney General of Palestine [1944] AC 168, Public Prosecutor v Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (No 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1). However, that prosecutorial discretion must be subject to the most basic limitation that it has to produce all the necessary evidence to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt (see Abdullah Zawawi v Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 MLJ 16 at p 19, 14 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (SC)). Thus, in [2013] 3 MLJ Siew Yoke Keong v Public Prosecutor (Ahmad Maarop FCJ) Teoh Hoe Chye v PP Yeap Teong Tean v Public Prosecutor [1987] 1 MLJ 220, Abdul Hamid CJ (Malaya) (as he then was) said at p 229: Nevertheless, the decision of whether to call or not to call a witness including a witness from whom a statement has been taken is always the right of the prosecution (Abdullah Zawawi v Public Prosecutor). In so far as the trial court is concerned, its duty is essentially to decide whether on the evidence before it the prosecution has proved its case, and if there are unsatisfactory features in the prosecution case to determine whether, in the light of such features, the prosecution case fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt (Abdullah Zawawi’s case). (Emphasis added.) [26] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah berpendapat kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi Hasliza Kasim telah membuatkan pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan semua keterangan yang diperlukan untuk membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah terhadap OKT sekaligus elemen pertuduhan pertama tidak dapat dipenuhi oleh pihak pendakwaan. Seterusnya, Mahkamah ini tidak berhasrat untuk mengulas lanjut berkenaan elemen pertuduhan yang seterusnya. Keputusan Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [27] Berdasarkan alasan tersebut, mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT sebagaimana pertuduhan. Berpandukan keputusan kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar (supra) dan hasil penemuan-penemuan 15 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal fakta, mahkamah ini tidak bersedia untuk mensabitkan OKT terhadap pertuduhan tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa diperintahkan untuk membela diri. tt (HIDAYATUL SYUHADA BINTI SHAMSUDIN) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Johor Bahru 28.12.2024 Pendakwaan: TPR Nevina Ravichandran Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Pihak pembelaan: Gurbinder Singh Gill Tetuan Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners 16 S/N ECdCjIpSkeeBapcLD2vdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal