ZALIMAN BIN ZAKARIA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

ZALIMAN BIN ZAKARIA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

On the evidence the appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs in both the sling bag and the vehicle so convictions on both charges are safe; a witness's prior statement may be used to impeach without proof of voluntariness and a material unexplained contradiction warrants expunging that witness's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
P-05(SH)-84-02/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Zaliman bin Zakaria; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Case Number
P-05(SH)-84-02/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Convictions on both charges affirmed; appellant's sentence for first charge varied on respondent's cross-appeal
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession, Presumption Under S37(da) DDA 1952, Impeachment of Witnesses, Voluntariness of Witness Statements, Statutory Construction of S39 B(2 A)
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Sentencing Trafficking Possession Presumption Under S37(da) DDA 1952 Impeachment of Witnesses +2 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaliman bin Zakaria

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant had possession and knowledge of drugs for both charges
  2. 2 Whether prosecution lawfully relied on statutory presumptions under s37(da) and proven possession by circumstantial evidence
  3. 3 Whether witness SD4's prior police statement required proof of voluntariness for impeachment and whether her evidence should be expunged wholly

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs in both the sling bag and the vehicle so convictions on both charges are safe; a witness's prior statement may be used to impeach without proof of voluntariness and a material unexplained contradiction warrants expunging that witness's evidence in toto; section 39B(2A)(d) is a mandatory precondition (and requires certification by the Public Prosecutor) before a court may impose life imprisonment and whipping instead of death, and the trial judge failed to satisfy that mandatory requirement so the life sentence was set aside and sentence altered on appeal.

Court Disposition

Convictions on both charges affirmed; appellant's sentence for first charge varied on respondent's cross-appeal

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal against convictions dismissed; convictions affirmed
  • Sentence for second charge (possession) of 2 years imprisonment affirmed