Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference (section 114(g) evidence act 1950)

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2023

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] 1. ) MOHD RAZEF BIN MOHAMED HARIP 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRULIMAN BIN JOHARI

Citation

JF-83-587-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JF-83-587-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution did not prove a prima facie case because it failed to show that the accused ever requested RM40,000 or engaged in overt acts directed to consummating cheating; material gaps existed (incomplete forensic report and failure to call material witness Dato' Mohd Faridz) giving rise to adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act; on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent, therefore accused were discharged and acquitted without calling defence.
12 Jan 2022

Nur Syafiqah Binti Mohammad Bakri [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-618-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-618-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the High Court's factual findings that appellants had exclusive access, custody, control and knowledge of the drugs found in the apartment and that the first appellant had control of the Proton Satria; common intention under Section 34 was properly inferred from the totality of circumstantial evidence; statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) DDA 1952 was properly invoked given the weights and not rebutted on balance of probabilities; SP6 was credible and did not require corroboration; failure to call Murugan did not justify an adverse inference as he was not…
12 Jan 2022

Zulzamri Bin Zulkifli [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-616-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-616-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the prosecution established custody, control and knowledge of the drugs and common intention between appellants; the statutory presumption of trafficking under s.37(da) DDA was properly invoked given the weights; SP6 was a credible witness whose evidence need not be corroborated; no adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act was warranted; appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences affirmed.
14 Dec 2021

MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHD RUSELI [ ]

Citation

DA-42S-7-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-42S-7-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the prosecution established all elements of Section 326: appellant (with another) caused grievous hurt intentionally using a weapon; police reports P1 and P9 were admissible because their makers testified and identified them; the discovery of the wooden implement P5 by the appellant satisfied Section 27 and linked the weapon to the injuries corroborated by medical evidence; common intention under Section 34 was established by eyewitnesses; absence of peripheral witnesses did not warrant adverse inference; trial judge properly assessed defence and mitigation; therefore conv…
30 Sept 2019

Izwanuddin bin Kasim

Citation

J-05(M)-456-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-456-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Trial judge properly found that cumulative circumstantial and eyewitness evidence (notably SP14, SP15, SP11, SP12, SP18, SP26) together with forensic pathology (stab wound to the heart) and the accused's knowledge of concealment of the weapon formed an overwhelming and coherent chain pointing to the appellant's guilt; SP14 was not an accomplice whose evidence required exclusionary corroboration; failure to call Ros Elly and Hoo Chee Keong did not prejudice the prosecution and section 114(g) did not apply; therefore conviction and death sentence were safe and affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] 1. ) MOHD RAZEF BIN MOHAMED HARIP 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRULIMAN BIN JOHARI

Nur Syafiqah Binti Mohammad Bakri [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Zulzamri Bin Zulkifli [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHD RUSELI [ ]

Izwanuddin bin Kasim