Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Dna evidence

  • 22 Feb 2026

    [ ] 1. ) Noor Nazmi Bin Nawi 2. ) Muhammad Hamdee Bin Che Hashim

    Citation
    DA-45A-31-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-45A-31-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material doubts existed as to the identity and chain of custody of seized exhibits, the accused lacked proved custody, control or dominion over the drugs, poisons, firearm and vehicle given accessibility to third parties, and there was no evidence of a pre-arranged common intention or actual participation; accordingly the accused were discharged and released without being called to enter their defence.

  • 15 Jan 2026

    RAMLI BIN MAT

    Citation
    RA-42JSKS-2-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    RA-42JSKS-2-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge properly assessed the child complainant's detailed and sworn evidence together with supporting medical and forensic evidence; inconsistencies did not fatally undermine credibility; absence of DNA on some items did not negate the totality of corroborative evidence; and the sentence of 15 years imprisonment and four strokes was commensurate and not subject to appellate interference.

  • 18 Dec 2025

    Koyo (Indonesia)

    Citation
    BA-45B-15-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45B-15-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Applying authorities and evidence as a whole, the court found on balance that the accused was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation (cumulative verbal humiliation and immediate physical aggression by the deceased), that there was no proven premeditation, that CCTV and DNA evidence supported the sequence of events favouring accused's account of being attacked and losing control, and therefore the act fell within Exception 1 to s300 reducing murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s304(b); accused convicted under s304(b) and sentenced to nine years' imprison…

  • 2 Dec 2025

    TAN CHENG KIT

    Citation
    J-05(SH)-509-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    J-05(SH)-509-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge's findings that the appellant had custody/control and knowledge of the drugs were supported by compelling evidence — keys and access card in appellant's hand, appellant guided police and opened the unit, extensive incriminating items in plain view, and DNA linking appellant to items — the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.37(da) DDA on the balance of probabilities and there was no basis to draw an adverse inference for non‑calling of Caroline Tan.

  • 2 Dec 2025

    TAN CHENG KIT

    Citation
    J-05(SH)-511-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    J-05(SH)-511-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court upheld the trial court's factual findings as supported by the totality of evidence: keys and access card in appellant's hand, appellant opened the unit and led police to it, DNA of appellant on multiple personal items recovered, and chemical analysis confirmed significant quantities; these facts established custody, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt and the non‑calling of Caroline Tan did not create a material gap warranting adverse inference. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

  • 2 Dec 2025

    TAN CHENG KIT

    Citation
    J-05(SH)-507-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    J-05(SH)-507-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The totality of evidence—keys and access card in appellant's hand, appellant opened the unit and led police, appellant's DNA on toothbrush/underwear/bed linen/pillowcase, witness identification and absence of evidence of another male occupant—established control/custody and knowledge of the drugs; appellant failed to rebut the presumption under s37(da) DDA on balance of probabilities and prosecution proved offences beyond reasonable doubt; appellate court will not disturb these factual findings absent compelling error; failure to call Caroline Tan did not warrant an adverse inference under s1…

  • 13 Oct 2025

    MOHD JURIB BIN MOHAMAD NAIB [ ]

    Citation
    K-05(H)-299-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    H
    Case number
    K-05(H)-299-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had exclusive possession, custody and control of the vehicle and the drugs therein, supported by concealment in multiple compartments, forensic/DNA linkage, ownership/use evidence and evasive conduct; therefore the inference of knowledge and trafficking by transportation under the DDA was properly drawn and the belated third‑party defence was implausible and insufficient to raise reasonable doubt, so there was no misdirection on burden and the conviction was safe.

  • 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.

  • 28 Jul 2025

    Azmir Mirza Bin Mahmud [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

    Citation
    CB-42JSKS-4-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-42JSKS-4-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appeal allowed because the trial judge materially erred by treating the complainant as 'unusually convincing' without the required detailed analysis, by relying on a stale identification parade conducted long after the incident without adequate assessment of its quality, and by treating DNA and supporting witness evidence as sufficient links to the penetrative act when they merely showed presence or repeated the complainant's account; overall conviction was unsafe and was set aside.

  • 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.