Karuppu Samy a/l Rajamohan

Karuppu Samy a/l Rajamohan

Trial judge's factual findings that appellant was seen holding the black bag, placed it in the ceiling void, and thereby had physical control and knowledge of the cannabis (657g) were supported by multiple credible eyewitnesses; once possession and the statutory weight threshold were established the presumption of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
J-05(M)-143-04/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Karuppu Samy a/l Rajamohan; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
M
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Case Number
J-05(M)-143-04/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal Judgment (hearing and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution/trafficking, Statutory Presumptions, Forensic Evidence (dna/fingerprint), Witness Credibility, Chain of Custody
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Appellate Review Possession Distribution/trafficking Statutory Presumptions Forensic Evidence (dna/fingerprint) +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karuppu Samy a/l Rajamohan

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal Judgment (hearing and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had possession and knowledge of the seized cannabis
  2. 2 Whether application of statutory presumption under s37(da)(vi) ADB to infer distribution was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether absence of fingerprint/DNA on exhibits undermined prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge's factual findings that appellant was seen holding the black bag, placed it in the ceiling void, and thereby had physical control and knowledge of the cannabis (657g) were supported by multiple credible eyewitnesses; once possession and the statutory weight threshold were established the presumption of distribution under s37(da)(vi) applied; absence of forensic marks did not negate the eyewitness evidence; appeal dismissed and conviction and death sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under s39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 upheld