Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cctv and forensic evidence

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD SHABUDIN BIN YUSOFF 2. ) AMIRUL ASRI BIN SHAARI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(SH)-380-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-380-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants had possession, control and knowledge of the Cannabis and acted with common intention to traffic; AP evidence was credible and corroborated by police witnesses and chemical analysis; deficiencies in CCTV, fingerprints or DNA and non-calling of certain passengers did not create material gaps; although the trial judge misstated the burden regarding s.37(da), that error was in favour of the appellants and caused no prejudice; thus convictions and sentences were affirmed.
26 Oct 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) TAN CAR CHUN 2. ) OOI ZHE XIAN

Citation

CB-45A-4-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45A-4-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case because it did not prove possession, control or knowledge of the drugs by the accused beyond mere presence: key witness evidence (Lim Yee Chuan) who had access and was visible on CCTV was not produced despite being identifiable, P28B was unreliable, forensic links were inconclusive, and there was insufficient evidence to infer trafficking or purposeful carrying for distribution; s114(g) adverse inference was applied against the prosecution and therefore the accused were acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case.
6 Sept 2023

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

Citation

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: material alternatives (co-occupants and identified suspects) had access to the unit, prosecution failed to call key witnesses and withheld or did not produce material evidence (pink bag, CCTV, visitor book, phones) giving rise to adverse inferences under s114(g); on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict so accused were acquitted without being called to defend themselves.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) MOHAMAD SHABUDIN BIN YUSOFF 2. ) AMIRUL ASRI BIN SHAARI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) TAN CAR CHUN 2. ) OOI ZHE XIAN

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