Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Cctv evidence

  • 28 Jan 2026

    1. ) AKHIL MURSYID BIN NOR HISHAM 2. ) MOHAMAD HADIE BIN ZULKIFELI

    Citation
    DA-83RS-135-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    DA-83RS-135-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found prosecution proved all statutory elements of theft under Section 379A read with Section 34 beyond reasonable doubt by way of CCTV evidence, credible eyewitness identifications, and recovery of matching engine and chassis following information associated with the accused; defence was mere bare denial and did not raise reasonable doubt or justify reverse inference under Section 114(g); accordingly accused convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

  • 19 Jan 2026

    IDRIS BIN SABU

    Citation
    KA-45A-53-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-53-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material inconsistencies and unexplained gaps in the chain of custody, significant credibility defects in SP5's evidence, investigative deficiencies by SP9, incomplete CCTV production and evidence suggesting involvement of other persons created reasonable doubt as to identity and possession of the seized drugs; therefore the accused must be acquitted.

  • 19 Jan 2026

    AMRAN BIN ABU SEMAN

    Citation
    KA-45A-55-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-45A-55-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material contradictions and two conflicting versions in the key investigator's evidence, unexplained gaps in the chain of custody, omission of potentially decisive CCTV footage, indications of third‑party involvement (DNA and additional suspects), and inadequate investigation by SP9 created reasonable doubt as to identity, custody and possession of the drugs; therefore the accused must be acquitted.

  • 6 Jan 2026

    CHU WEE KONG

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-369-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-369-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court found the trial judge correctly evaluated the evidence, accepted SP3 as a credible single witness, and correctly applied the presumption of possession and knowledge under section 37(d) ADB; additional raids were separate and did not create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case that drugs were seized from the appellant at the scene; delays and incomplete CCTV did not render prosecution evidence unreliable.

  • 15 Dec 2025

    MOHAMAD RASHID BIN SAHUTI

    Citation
    BA-45A-159-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-159-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution proved identity of the drugs, possession and knowledge by linking the sling bag containing cannabis and the accused's identity card to the accused; the weight invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking which the accused failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; non‑calling of the investigating officer was justified by medical evidence and did not merit adverse inference; accordingly conviction under s39B(1)(a) DDA is warranted.

  • 27 Oct 2025

    1. ) YUVAN RAJ A/L VIJAYAKUMAR 2. ) SARAWAN RAJ A/L ARJUNAN

    Citation
    BA-83-71-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    BA-83-71-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Prosecution failed to discharge its burden to establish a prima facie case under section 403 because key independent evidence (CCTV) was not seized or produced, identification and documentary links to the accused were weak (gatepass only linked invoiced goods to Sarawan), goods were seized from the driver not from the accused, and the investigation was admitted to be incomplete; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to enter their defence and they were discharged and acquitted at the close of prosecution.

  • 10 Oct 2025

    GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L NADARAJA

    Citation
    BA-45A-128-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-128-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because it did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and exclusive control/power of disposal over the drugs; crucial material witnesses (Somma Kumaran and Raj) were not called and the investigation to trace them was insufficient; DNA evidence indicated other contributors in the locked room and CCTV was not produced; these gaps created reasonable doubt and required acquittal without calling the accused to enter defence.

  • 24 Jul 2025

    MUHAMMAD FAIZ NAJMI BIN MOHAMAD YUSOF

    Citation
    TA-83D-533-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    TA-83D-533-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The accused was discharged because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, CCTV evidence undermining the asserted manner and timing of discovery, and failure to call a material witness (Kpl Azrul) destroyed the credibility of the prosecution's case on possession and knowledge of the drug.

  • 26 Jun 2025

    SATIA A/L BALU

    Citation
    WA-42S-12-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42S-12-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction because cumulative defects (an irregular and prejudicial identification parade, material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony including intoxication, non‑production of a significant portion of CCTV footage permitting an adverse inference, and absence of the appellant's DNA on the victim) together raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt such that the conviction was unsafe; appellant acquitted and discharged.

  • 26 Jun 2025

    SATIA A/L BALU

    Citation
    WA-42H-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42H-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The conviction was unsafe because the identification parade was irregular and suggestive, the victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies and was affected by intoxication, crucial CCTV footage was not produced (warranting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), and forensic DNA did not link the appellant to the victim; the trial judge failed to properly evaluate these matters and the defence, such that a reasonable doubt existed. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's appeal ag…