[ ] 1. ) Joseph A/l Christian 2. ) Kaliamma A/p Marathamuthu

[ ] 1. ) Joseph A/l Christian 2. ) Kaliamma A/p Marathamuthu

Maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence shows failure to prove custody, control and knowledge by the 2nd Accused: identification of her placing the box was not sufficiently certain, multiple occupants and drugs found in separate locations were not linked to her, forensic evidence (DNA/fingerprint/urine) linked to the deceased 1st Accused, and the 1st Accused’s caution statement corroborated the defence that the box belonged to him; accordingly no prima facie case was made and the 2nd Accused was discharged and acquitted.

Citation
JB-45A-8-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused (2nd Accused): Kaliamma a/p Marathamuthu; Co Accused (deceased, 1st Accused): Joseph a/l Cristian
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Case Number
JB-45A-8-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Decision on Prima Facie at Close of Prosecution (discharged and Acquitted)
Outcome
2nd Accused discharged and acquitted
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Prima Facie Test / Maximum Evaluation, Wilful Blindness, Common Intention, Admissibility of Statements of Deceased, Chain of Custody, Expert Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking Possession Prima Facie Test / Maximum Evaluation Wilful Blindness +4 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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Kaliamma a/p Marathamuthu

Accused (2nd Accused)

Joseph a/l Cristian

Co Accused (deceased, 1st Accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Decision on Prima Facie at Close of Prosecution (discharged and Acquitted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved the subject matter was 221.86 grams of cannabis
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Accused had possession (custody and control) of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Accused had knowledge of the drugs (mens rea) or was a carrier

Ratio Decidendi

Maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence shows failure to prove custody, control and knowledge by the 2nd Accused: identification of her placing the box was not sufficiently certain, multiple occupants and drugs found in separate locations were not linked to her, forensic evidence (DNA/fingerprint/urine) linked to the deceased 1st Accused, and the 1st Accused’s caution statement corroborated the defence that the box belonged to him; accordingly no prima facie case was made and the 2nd Accused was discharged and acquitted.

Court Disposition

2nd Accused discharged and acquitted

Orders

  • 2nd Accused Kaliamma a/p Marathamuthu is discharged and acquitted of the charge of trafficking in 221.86 grams of cannabis; no defence called