Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility of prosecution witnesses

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2025

AIZULFAZLI BIN IDRIS

Citation

PB-83D-63-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PB-83D-63-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Material and unresolved conflicts among prosecution witnesses about the exact location of the seizure and inadequate investigation by the investigating officer meant the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of custody, control and knowledge; accordingly no prima facie case existed to call the accused to defend and the accused was discharged and acquitted.
29 Sept 2025

MOHD NAJID BIN HASAN

Citation

KA-45A-23-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-23-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution's primary witness (SP3) was found unreliable and his inconsistent testimony about how the source located the house and identified the accused, together with the failure to seize and inspect an available mobile phone and absence of forensic links, destroyed the prosecution narrative and raised a reasonable doubt; because the prosecution failed to call or account for the source and critical evidence, it was unsafe to require the accused to make a defence and the accused must be acquitted.
31 Jul 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] MOHAMAD IHTIZAM BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

CB-83D-1348-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83D-1348-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution produced two materially inconsistent versions about custody of the drug exhibit; those conflicts created reasonable doubt and alternative inferences (including possibility of two different exhibits) so no prima facie case was established and it was unsafe to call the accused to answer; accused discharged and acquitted.
27 May 2025

MUHAMMAD NAZZIRUL AQIEF BIN MOHD AZIZ

Citation

KA-82D-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-82D-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found that although facts supported that the accused was detained and thus s.31A applied, material contradictions and gaps in prosecution evidence—principally inconsistent accounts and unexplained discrepancies regarding test strips and the manner/location of sample collection—created more than one plausible inference; those material inconsistencies destroyed the prima facie case so benefit of doubt accrued to the accused and the prosecution failed to make out a case to call the accused to answer.
3 Sept 2024

DANIEL EE

Citation

BA-45-35-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-35-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge beyond raising reasonable doubt because it did not exclude access by third parties to the locations where drugs were found, there was material and damaging inconsistency in prosecution evidence about the accused's wallet, and a failure to administer the statutory caution under s37B DDA 1952; therefore no prima facie case for possession or trafficking was established.
28 Feb 2024

[ ] RUKMAN BIN YAAKUB

Citation

DA-41LB(A)-1-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

DA-41LB(A)-1-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Magistrate: the urine screening was performed by a corporal (SP5) in breach of s.31A(1A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, prosecution evidence contained conflicting and materially inconsistent accounts and the chain linking the sample to the respondent was not satisfactorily proven; therefore the screening result was rightly excluded and no prima facie case remained, requiring the acquittal to be upheld.
28 Oct 2022

MUHAMMAD FARHANUDIN BIN ABDUL RASHID

Citation

PA-62D-37-01/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PA-62D-37-01/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case as material elements of possession and knowledge were not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to illogical and conflicting police testimony, unexplained contradictions (including between SP1 and SP5), and prosecution's failure to call or offer material public witnesses/recordings which created reasonable doubt; accordingly accused was properly acquitted without being called to enter defence.
18 Dec 2020

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA Teoh Poh Bu

Citation

BL-83D-609-05/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BL-83D-609-05/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although the chemist proved that a sample analysed contained 12.01g methamphetamine, material and unexplained contradictions between prosecution witnesses about custody, handling, location and marking of the seized package, together with gaps in handling and documentation, broke the chain of custody and undermined the integrity of the exhibit so the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.