1. ) MUHAMAD HAFFIZ BIN MOHD RADZI 2. ) MOHD FAHMEE BIN MOHAMAD NOR

1. ) MUHAMAD HAFFIZ BIN MOHD RADZI 2. ) MOHD FAHMEE BIN MOHAMAD NOR

Prosecution failed to prove the essential element of immediate fear or violence required for robbery under Section 390/391 read with Section 395; the accomplice statement (ID-223) was inadmissible and without probative value absent cross-examination; prosecution’s omission to call a material witness and produce original investigative document created a prejudicial gap justifying an adverse inference; on maximum evaluation the evidence did not amount to a prima facie case and the accused were therefore acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
WA-61RS-5-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Muhamad Haffiz bin Mohd Radzi (OKT-1); Accused: Mohd Fahmee bin Mohamad Nor (OKT-2); Accused: Azwan bin Asli (OKT-3); Complainant: Kun Gao (SP-1)
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 August 2025
Case Number
WA-61RS-5-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Gang Robbery (section 395 Kanun Keseksaan) / Close of Prosecution Case (prima Facie Evaluation)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case; no prima facie case made out under Section 395 Kanun Keseksaan
Legal Topics
Robbery (gang Robbery), Prima Facie Test, Admissibility of Accomplice Statements, Failure to Call Material Witness / Adverse Inference, Search and Seizure / Lawful Investigation Vs Misappropriation
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Robbery (gang Robbery) Prima Facie Test Admissibility of Accomplice Statements Failure to Call Material Witness / Adverse Inference Search and Seizure / Lawful Investigation Vs Misappropriation

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Muhamad Haffiz bin Mohd Radzi (OKT-1)

Accused

Mohd Fahmee bin Mohamad Nor (OKT-2)

Accused

Azwan bin Asli (OKT-3)

Accused

Kun Gao (SP-1)

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Gang Robbery (section 395 Kanun Keseksaan) / Close of Prosecution Case (prima Facie Evaluation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved a prima facie case for gang-robbery under Section 395 Kanun Keseksaan
  2. 2 Whether the statement ID-223 (accomplice Sofan Harizal) was admissible under Section 32(1)(i) Evidence Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of accused amounted to robbery (elements of theft/extortion plus fear or violence) or lawful investigation/rampasan

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove the essential element of immediate fear or violence required for robbery under Section 390/391 read with Section 395; the accomplice statement (ID-223) was inadmissible and without probative value absent cross-examination; prosecution’s omission to call a material witness and produce original investigative document created a prejudicial gap justifying an adverse inference; on maximum evaluation the evidence did not amount to a prima facie case and the accused were therefore acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case; no prima facie case made out under Section 395 Kanun Keseksaan

Orders

  • Charges under Section 395 Kanun Keseksaan dismissed as to Muhamad Haffiz bin Mohd Radzi (OKT-1), Mohd Fahmee bin Mohamad Nor (OKT-2) and Azwan bin Asli (OKT-3)
  • Accused discharged and released without being called to enter defence