Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference s114(g)

Legal area

Court

13 May 2025

MOHAMMAD SYAFIQ BIN SHAH DAHLI

Citation

B-05(SH)-465-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-465-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the conviction unsafe because the prosecution's account of discovery was rendered doubtful by inconsistencies between contemporaneous reports and trial testimony, the prosecution failed to call the co-attending officer whose evidence was material, and the trial judge gave unclear and internally inconsistent findings at the close of prosecution (including conflation of direct evidence and legal presumption under s37(d) ADB 1952) which prejudiced the accused; accordingly the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused acquitted.
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: key alternative owners or persons with access (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire and other occupants) were not excluded; prosecution failed to secure attendance of essential witnesses and did not produce CCTV/visitor records; existence of unexplained pink bag and unanalysed phones further created reasonable doubt. Adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act were warranted. On maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore accused were acqui…
23 Mar 2022

[ ] NG KHIAN HEE

Citation

BL-83-2614-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BL-83-2614-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved all material elements of Sec 4B(a) ARJT 1953 beyond reasonable doubt: eyewitness provokateur evidence placed accused at the counter handling bets and cash, expert witness orally confirmed seized machines were gaming machines of the chance type convertible to cash, and gaps (missing witness/one missing machine in store) were not material or indicative of deliberate suppression; consequently accused convicted and sentenced.
20 May 2021

1. SULAIMAN BIN NGARIF 2. MERIAM BINTI JUSOH 3. KETUA PENGARAH KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 1. ) AHMAD IKHWAN BIN AHMAD FAUZI (mendakwa melalui bapa dan sahabat wakilnya) AHMAD FAUZI BIN ABDULLAH 2. )

Citation

T-01(NCvC)(W)-594-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

T-01(NCvC)(W)-594-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On rehearing the Court of Appeal found the High Court erred by relying solely on unappealed guilty pleas and by misapplying s114(g) against the defendants when the plaintiff bore the evidential burden to call the prefects; medical and testimonial evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the alleged multi-part assault; foreseeability and reasonable supervision by school staff were not established; consequently liability findings against Defendants 1–9 were overturned. The Court adjusted quantum: reduced the hearing-aid award to MYR 84,000, allowed MYR 5,000 for jaw injury, maintained special…
19 May 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Nor Azizah binti Muhammad Bavithran A/l Paramasivan

Citation

JA-45A-54-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-54-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found prosecution proved identity and weights of drugs and that the accused had custody/control and knowledge (attempted flight) of the drugs; statutory presumptions under s37(da) arose for each charge and the defence failed to rebut them on the balance of probabilities or raise a reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was convicted of trafficking and sentenced to death under s39B(2).
2 Jul 2020

Tan Boon An Lee Peng Too

Citation

BA-11BNCC-9-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCC-9-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the contemporaneous evidence (notably WhatsApp communications, multiple tranches, repeated collection of interest at 5% monthly plus upfront deductions, involvement of third parties and failure to produce bank statements) established the plaintiff was carrying on an unlicensed moneylending business; the statutory presumption under s10OA (or alternatively a factual presumption under s114) was not rebutted and the agreements were therefore unenforceable under s15 Moneylenders Act; the magistrate's judgment was set aside and appeal allowed.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHAMMAD SYAFIQ BIN SHAH DAHLI

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

[ ] NG KHIAN HEE

1. SULAIMAN BIN NGARIF 2. MERIAM BINTI JUSOH 3. KETUA PENGARAH KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 1. ) AHMAD IKHWAN BIN AHMAD FAUZI (mendakwa melalui bapa dan sahabat wakilnya) AHMAD FAUZI BIN ABDULLAH 2. )

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Nor Azizah binti Muhammad Bavithran A/l Paramasivan

Tan Boon An Lee Peng Too