[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 the respondent because SP2's account contained material doubts, prosecution failed to call material witnesses (Hariharan and Suresh) thereby permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950, the unexplained pink bag and incomplete...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
W-05(LB)-401-09/2023 (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)-401-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offences) / Appeal From High Court Acquittal at Close of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision to acquit and discharge respondent upheld.
Legal Topics
Possession, Joint Possession, Prima Facie, Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness, Chain of Custody, Search and Seizure, Trafficking Presumption
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Criminal Procedure Possession Joint Possession Prima Facie Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witness +3 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 20 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) / Appeal From High Court Acquittal at Close of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case at the close of its case
  2. 2 Whether evidence of police sergeant (SP2) was credible and sufficient to establish possession
  3. 3 Whether failure to call material witnesses (Hariharan, Suresh) warranted an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against the respondent because SP2's account contained material doubts, prosecution failed to call material witnesses (Hariharan and Suresh) thereby permitting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950, the unexplained pink bag and incomplete forensic steps undermined chain of custody and raised realistic possibilities of access by others or planting, and therefore the High Court's acquittal and discharge must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision to acquit and discharge respondent upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the High Court to acquit and discharge the respondent is affirmed.