Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of police reports

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2025

JAMES A/L DIVIT CHO CHUN CHOONG

Citation

WA-A73KJ-386-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73KJ-386-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found conflicting accounts and physical evidence (rear left damage to defendant's vehicle), delay and lack of photographic evidence by plaintiff, and contemporaneous report by defendant made both parties causative; apportioned liability 50:50, reduced plaintiff's general damages by 50%, awarded RM6,000 to plaintiff; no special or future medical costs awarded; each party to bear own costs.
20 Nov 2024

CHEAH YOOI KWAN 1. ) LEE MUN WAI 2. ) Chang Soow Beng PENCELAH PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

Citation

BI-A53KJ-341-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BI-A53KJ-341-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found First and Second Defendants 100% liable for striking the plaintiff; the First Defendant's police report contained admissions and was admissible; adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 were properly drawn from defendants' failure to call the rider and to produce coordinator report or full insurance policy; Third Defendant failed to prove fraud and failed to produce the policy to avoid liability; accordingly Third Defendant is liable under the Road Transport Act 1987 to compensate the plaintiff; damages totalling RM112,094.00 awarded t…
19 Aug 2024

CHANG SIN LIAN

Citation

MA-83-193-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-83-193-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court discharged the accused because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for criminal intimidation: the charge did not clearly identify the specific section, witness evidence did not show the threat was directed at the complainant nor that the complainant was genuinely fearful (undermined by 41 days attendance at work), the prosecution failed to call union and HR witnesses leaving an evidential gap (invoking s114(g) presumption), and on maximum evaluation the words uttered did not suffice to prove intent to cause alarm; accordingly the accused was released without being…
31 May 2024

Sri Esbina (M) Sdn Bhd Syarikat Aliran Sejahtera Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

Citation

WA-22C-50-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-50-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Settlement Agreement clause (e) was ambiguous and, construed commercially, required the Defendant to pay the minimum 30% to project consultants for Claims 30 and 31 notwithstanding bank deductions; Claim No.32 was not covered by the Settlement Agreement and the RM317,578 paid for Claim 32 belongs to the Plaintiff (Windsor performed the works); Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining those funds; Plaintiff failed to prove the missing materials claim and police reports were inadmissible for lack of maker evidence. Consequently judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for RM994,156.32 plu…
31 Oct 2023

KIRUBAKARAN A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) NADRAJAN A/L CHEN CHIAH 2. ) SUGUMARAN A/L KRISHNAN

Citation

JA-A53KJ-365-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-365-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that D1's motorcycle was involved and that D1 was negligent. Material contradictions between D1's police reports, the excessive delay in reporting, the absence of direct eyewitness evidence, and D1's non‑attendance to give evidence rendered the police reports inadmissible as substantive proof (retained only as ID). Accordingly plaintiff's claim against D1 and D2 is dismissed with costs.
14 Feb 2023

1. ) DERRICK KONG YING KIT 2. ) ADIKEM SDN BHD JEYANTHINI A/P KANNAPERAN

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-63-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-63-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved the accident and defendant's negligence; the defendant's own police report admitting loss of control and entry into the opposite lane, together with investigator SP4's evidence and lack of rebuttal after the defendants elected 'no case to answer', established liability; inconsistencies as to precise encroachment distance were immaterial; appeal dismissed.
19 Oct 2022

MUHAMAD IZWAN BN MUHAMAD YUNUS 1. ) HARYATI BINTI ISMAIL 2. ) MOHD ZAKWAN BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

CF-A73KJ-8-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CF-A73KJ-8-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court accepted plaintiff's account and the mute evidence (photographs of vehicle damage consistent with plaintiff's version), rejected defendants' police report as inadmissible because defendants did not testify, applied adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950, and found defendants 100% liable for the accident; plaintiff entitled to assessed general and special damages and costs.
8 Apr 2022

[ ] 1. ) THENAGGARAO A/L THRAL RAO 2. ) SIVANAATHIREN A/L RAJENDRAN 3. ) GUNALAN A/L PARASURAMAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L SHANDRASEGARAN

Citation

BL-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-45A-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because mere drafting/typing by defence counsel does not prove fabrication or tampering; challenges to the truth of the police reports are premature at this stage and the prosecution bears the burden to disprove the accuseds' versions; counsel validly appointed and constitutional right to counsel prevents removal absent evidence of misuse; stay refused and trial to proceed.