Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of hearsay

Legal area

Court

1 Oct 2025

YONG CHOO KIONG

Citation

05(L)-30-03/2024(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

L
Case number

05(L)-30-03/2024(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 265A(2) and (3) CPC is a valid legislative provision that lawfully permits in-camera inquiry without the accused and counsel; the trial judge properly applied s.265A and s.20 Witness Protection Act 2009, and did not breach Articles 5(1) or 8(1) FC; s.182A CPC was complied with because the appellant's cautioned statement was in substance the same as his oral evidence; the trial judge's finding that PW15 was credible and her evidence was corroborated by contemporaneous distress calls, diary entries, police report, CCTV opportunity evidence and medical examination was sound and not to be…
30 Sept 2025

Ganesh a/l Nathan

Citation

NA-61R-15-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-61R-15-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received RM1,400 because the key corroborative document (ID16) was hearsay and inadmissible due to loss of the original audio and lack of proof of the transcription, there were no independent witnesses to the handover and surrounding evidence did not adequately corroborate PW3's assertion; therefore the accused must be acquitted.
25 Jun 2025

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Sazali Bin Mohd Karli (Selaku Pengetua Pertama)

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(W)-74-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(W)-74-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because appellants failed on the balance of probabilities to prove the alleged incidents of assault or that respondents breached their duty of care or statutory obligations; key evidence was inadmissible or lacking (first appellant did not testify, primary witnesses not called), police/MOE inquiries did not sustain the claims, and the High Court's factual findings were not plainly wrong.
12 Jul 2024

[ ] NORAZLIZAM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Citation

PA-45A-51-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-45A-51-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of possession because it did not exclude possibility of access by others to the vehicle or establish the accused's knowledge of concealed drugs; contradictions in police evidence and failure to call the registered owner or take all reasonable steps to secure that witness (and to make ID61 admissible) meant no prima facie case was made out; accordingly accused was discharged at close of prosecution.
4 Oct 2023

1. ) NAZIF BIN RIDHWANUDDIN 2. ) RIDHWANUDDIN BIN ABD KADIR 1. ) MALATHI A/P MUNISAMY 2. ) VISVABARATHI A/P MUNISAMY 3. ) AIA GENERAL BERHAD

Citation

AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants' vehicle struck the plaintiff's motorcycle; key evidence was unreliable or hearsay (SP4, 999 call information as relayed, inconsistent police investigation and photographs, and deficiencies in IO evidence). As plaintiffs did not discharge the burden, the claim is dismissed with costs. Separately, insurer (Defendant Third) proved fraud on a balance of probabilities but the plaintiffs' substantive claim still fails for lack of proof.
21 Aug 2023

ROSNANI BINTI JUSOH Mohd Zulkernean Bin Pon [Sebagai Wakil Diri Kepada Si Mati Pon Bin Mohamed No. K/p: 430210-01-5471]

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-116-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-116-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly treated the Surveyor's Report as inadmissible Part C material because its contents relied on unproven third‑party receipts and agreements (hearsay) and the maker could not vouch for originals; Perayu failed to prove payment of RM260,000.00 or that Respondent was unjustly enriched; therefore the interlocutory application for assessment of RM260,000.00 was rightly dismissed and costs of RM2,000.00 awarded to Respondent subject to taxation.
29 Mar 2022

SELVARAJOO A/L KASINATHAN

Citation

JA-45A-24-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-24-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie possession because it did not exclude other persons with access to the premises, failed to produce material witnesses despite inadequate search efforts so hearsay could not be admitted, and relied on actions (test-fitting/opening doors) that were inadmissible without caution; absence of exclusive possession meant presumption of trafficking did not arise and prima facie case failed.
27 Aug 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Kee Loon & Encik Low Wei Loke (Tetuan Low)

Citation

WA-45A-9-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-9-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove that the statutory caution required by s.37B DDA was administered after the accused was placed under arrest, rendering his subsequent statements and conduct inadmissible; combined with the court’s refusal to admit the car owner’s statement under s.32(1)(i) and the absence of direct evidence establishing the accused’s knowledge and possession of the drugs (and inability to rely on s.37(d)), the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case for trafficking under s.39B(1) DDA and the accused was acquitted.