MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN ABDULLAH

MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN ABDULLAH

The conviction was unsafe because the trial court misapplied the burden of proof and failed to give adequate judicial appreciation to SD2's corroborating evidence and to investigative gaps; the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to knowledge and possession, warranting acquittal and discharge.

Citation
B-05(SH)-101-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Muhammad Afiq bin Abdullah; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 December 2025
Case Number
B-05(SH)-101-03/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed; Conviction Set Aside)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged forthwith.
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Knowledge (mens Rea), Presumption of Trafficking, Burden of Proof, Wilful Blindness, Adverse Inference Under S114(g), Judicial Appreciation of Defence Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Law Evidence Law Procedure Trafficking Possession Knowledge (mens Rea) Presumption of Trafficking +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Afiq bin Abdullah

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Trafficking) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed; Conviction Set Aside)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether custody and carrying of a bag containing drugs proved trafficking and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected on burden of proof by effectively shifting burden to accused
  3. 3 Whether testimony of SD2 (owner of bag) and investigative failures discharged or raised reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the trial court misapplied the burden of proof and failed to give adequate judicial appreciation to SD2's corroborating evidence and to investigative gaps; the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to knowledge and possession, warranting acquittal and discharge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged forthwith.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence by the High Court set aside
  • Appellant acquitted and discharged forthwith