[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

Majority held prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against respondent: SP2's evidence contained significant and unremedied gaps (inconsistent account of forced entry, lack of corroboration, unexplained pink bag, failure to call key witnesses who had access to the unit), and these gaps raised reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
W-05(LB)-402-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Pendakwa Raya; Respondent: Murukan A/L Ramakrishnan; Respondent: Raja Sekar Selvam
Court
LB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Case Number
W-05(LB)-402-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Hearing of Prosecution Appeal Against High Court Acquittal; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court acquittal of respondent upheld
Legal Topics
Possession, Joint Possession, Prima Facie Case, Search and Seizure, Section 39 B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 12 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 34 Penal Code, Section 114 Evidence Act 1950, Chain of Custody, Failure to Call Material Witness, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Procedure Possession Joint Possession Prima Facie Case Search and Seizure +7 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant

Murukan A/L Ramakrishnan

Respondent

Raja Sekar Selvam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Hearing of Prosecution Appeal Against High Court Acquittal; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case to call accused to defend
  2. 2 Whether possession/ownership of seized drugs by respondent was proved beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether failure to call material witnesses (Hariharan and Suresh) justified adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against respondent: SP2's evidence contained significant and unremedied gaps (inconsistent account of forced entry, lack of corroboration, unexplained pink bag, failure to call key witnesses who had access to the unit), and these gaps raised reasonable doubt about possession and possible planting; therefore acquittal by trial judge was correct and appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court acquittal of respondent upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent acquittal and discharge affirmed