Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference (s114 evidence act)

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2026

GOPU A/L PUPATHY

Citation

MC-83-121-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-121-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court convicted because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused executed a right turn into the weighbridge without stopping or ensuring the road was clear, thereby driving in a manner dangerous to the public under the third limb of s41(1) RTA; this finding was supported by CCTV analysis, Puspakom reports, skid marks, the accused's admission in police report and proper investigation by PW6, and the defence narrative failed to create reasonable doubt.
24 Nov 2025

Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Citation

B-05(SH)-179-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-179-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court accepted the trial judge's finding that the drugs were found in a backpack in the appellant's possession outside the premises, that chemical analysis established identity and quantity, and that defence evidence (including D22) was internally inconsistent and contradicted by SD2's guilty plea and objective evidence; on that basis custody, control and knowledge were established and the quantity supported trafficking, therefore the conviction was safe and must be affirmed.
12 Nov 2025

EMI SUHARDI BIN MOHD FADZIL 1. ) ZAINAP BINTI ABU 2. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI SEBAHAGIAN TANAH YANG TERKANDUNG DI BAWAH GM 57,LOT 1915, MUKIM BUKIT LADA, DAERAH POKOK SENA,KEDAH DAN SEBUAH RUMAH YANG BERALAMAT

Citation

KA-22NCvC-18-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-18-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as registered proprietor, holds an indefeasible title under s340(1) NLC because the Defendants failed to prove any statutory exception in s340(2): no actual fraud by Plaintiff or agent was established, the under-declaration for stamp duty did not render the transfer instrument void or insufficient under the NLC, and prior OS proceedings and the failure to call material witnesses justified adverse inferences against the Defendants; accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession and costs.
25 Aug 2025

SELVAKUMARA A/L PARAMASIVAM [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

N-05(SH)-602-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

N-05(SH)-602-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was affirmed because the AP's testimony was admissible and credible under s40A DDA, corroborated by police evidence and CCTV showing the appellant's vehicle and seizure of drugs from its back seat establishing possession and trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; omissions (other CCTV angles, sim/phone, flash money, certain witnesses) were not materially prejudicial and did not justify adverse inferences or overturn factual findings.
5 Mar 2025

[Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri] 1. ) Mr Sah Hanaosuk 2. ) Mr. Sontaya Labaidae

Citation

KA-45A-43-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-43-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of possession (physical custody and inferred knowledge) and joint intention to distribute; quantity invoked statutory presumption of distribution which the defence failed to rebut; credible, consistent police evidence and intact chain of custody supported conviction under s39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 read with s39B(2) and s34 Penal Code; sentencing exercised under Act 846 resulted in life imprisonment and 12 strokes each instead of death.
12 Nov 2024

Kamaruzaman bin Hashim

Citation

KA-42S-4-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-42S-4-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed and convictions set aside because the successor Sessions judge materially misdirected himself by merely adopting and reading the predecessor's draft reasons without independently considering whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case under s173(f) CPC; that misdirection was substantive and not curable under s422 CPC. Independently, prosecution failed to call or offer material witness Muhammad Mustaqim, warranting an adverse inference under s114 Evidence Act and undermining the prosecution's case; accordingly no sustainable prima facie case existed and appellants…
30 Jul 2024

Deloitte Corporate Advisory Services Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Lim Tham Cheng 2. ) Chuah Hwa Bee 3. ) Leong Yue Choy 4. ) Kenny P'ng Chun Loon (As The Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Eng Soo Keaw @ Ooi Soo Keow, Deceased) 5. ) Tan Yok Keen @

Citation

PA-22NCvC-230-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-230-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Engagement Letter remained subsisting and enforceable; plaintiff performed sufficient work that led to the completion of the Transaction and, under the express 'Other term', is entitled to the agreed Minimum Success Fee (RM2.75m) plus 6% service tax where completion occurred within 24 months of the earlier termination; defendants 2-5 are jointly and severally liable for RM2,915,000, with the Difference to be assessed, interest and costs as ordered.
16 Nov 2023

LIM HUAT PAH

Citation

JB-41S-4-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41S-4-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no merit in the appellant's complaints: the learned Magistrate properly evaluated witness credibility and chain of custody, correctly found actual possession under s12(2) DDA based on eyewitness evidence and conduct (throwing the bag, flight, struggle) and chemist report, did not improperly invoke s114 Evidence Act, and did not misapply the burden of proof or the presumptions in s37 DDA; accordingly the conviction and sentence were upheld.
18 Aug 2023

RAJESWERI PATHMARANI A/P PARANTHAMAN 1. ) VITHIAPATHY A/L B.SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) Siva Shankar A/l Arunasalam

Citation

BA-22NCvC-464-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-464-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the signature in the 10.06.2009 Will was not that of the deceased and the Grant of Probate was obtained by fraud; the 2nd Defendant failed to prove he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, therefore the transfer of Land No.3 is void and must be set aside; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
24 Feb 2023

VICKNESWARAN A/L SASSIE [ ]

Citation

B-05(M)-274-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-274-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of evidence the Court found the prosecution proved a negotiated sale constituting trafficking; markings and witness identifications established continuous custody and identity of the drugs despite minor timing discrepancies; telephone records were not material to attract adverse inference under s114(g); conduct of all accused supported an inference of common intention under s34; trial judge’s interventions under s165 were lawful and caused no actual prejudice; and the judge’s findings show the prosecution met the beyond reasonable doubt standard under s182A such that convictio…