[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: key alternative owners or persons with access (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire and other occupants) were not excluded; prosecution failed to secure attendance of essential witnesses and did not produce CCTV/visitor records; existence of unexplained pink bag and unanalysed phones further created reasonable doubt. Adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act were warranted. On maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore accused were acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.

Citation
WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Murukan a/l Ramakrishnan; Defendant: Raja Sekar Selvam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 September 2023
Case Number
WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Prosecution Case Concluded (prima Facie Assessment)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged; no call to defence as prima facie case not established
Legal Topics
Possession, Distribution, Prima Facie Assessment, Suppression of Evidence, Adverse Inference S114(g), CCTV and Documentary Evidence, Duty to Call Witnesses, Exclusive Possession
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Possession Distribution Prima Facie Assessment Suppression of Evidence +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Murukan a/l Ramakrishnan

Defendant

Raja Sekar Selvam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Prosecution Case Concluded (prima Facie Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved prima facie offences under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (ss 39B(1)(a), 12(2))
  2. 2 Whether the accused had custody/control and knowledge (possession) of the drugs
  3. 3 Whether prosecution's failure to call key witnesses (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire) and to produce CCTV/visitor logs amounted to suppression of evidence and warranted adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: key alternative owners or persons with access (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire and other occupants) were not excluded; prosecution failed to secure attendance of essential witnesses and did not produce CCTV/visitor records; existence of unexplained pink bag and unanalysed phones further created reasonable doubt. Adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act were warranted. On maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore accused were acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged; no call to defence as prima facie case not established

Orders

  • Murukan a/l Ramakrishnan and Raja Sekar Selvam are acquitted and discharged without being called to make their defence
  • Charges dismissed for lack of prima facie proof