ZAHILI BIN MOHAMED

ZAHILI BIN MOHAMED

Conviction and sentence affirmed because prosecution proved appellant possessed a dangerous weapon in a public place and the appellant failed to discharge the reverse onus under s6(2) to show a lawful purpose; failure to call the shop worker did not amount to suppression invoking s114(g); the imposed six-year...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DA-42S-3-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Zahili bin Mohamed; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Case Number
DA-42S-3-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession of Offensive Weapon in Public, Reverse Burden of Proof Under S6(2), Adverse Inference for Nondisclosure S114(g) Evidence Act, Statutory Minimum Sentences
Criminal Law Evidence Law Offensive Weapons Law Possession of Offensive Weapon in Public Reverse Burden of Proof Under S6(2) Adverse Inference for Nondisclosure S114(g) Evidence Act Statutory Minimum Sentences

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

Zahili bin Mohamed

Appellant/perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved possession of an offensive weapon in a public place
  2. 2 Whether appellant discharged reverse burden to show lawful purpose under s6(2)
  3. 3 Whether failure to call a store employee engages adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction and sentence affirmed because prosecution proved appellant possessed a dangerous weapon in a public place and the appellant failed to discharge the reverse onus under s6(2) to show a lawful purpose; failure to call the shop worker did not amount to suppression invoking s114(g); the imposed six-year sentence was within statutory bounds and not excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under s6(1) upheld