Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Credibility of police evidence

  • 26 Nov 2025

    MOHD ADUKA BIN MUHAMAD

    Citation
    T-05(SH)-327-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    T-05(SH)-327-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court of Appeal found material and unresolved contradictions in prosecution evidence (discrepant timings of seizure and transport, inconsistent accounts on whether appellant attempted to flee, and inconsistency over where the identity card and bag were found) and insufficient critical evaluation by trial judge; these defects meant prosecution failed to prove custody, control and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt and therefore no prima facie case existed to require the accused to make a defence, warranting allowance of the appeal and quashing of conviction and sentence.

  • 15 Oct 2025

    CHE KU SAHABUDIN BIN CHE KU MAN

    Citation
    T-05(SH)-588-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    T-05(SH)-588-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Where prosecution proved the nature and quantity of drugs and established direct possession/control (proximity and custody), the statutory presumption under s.37(da)(xvi) applied; the trial court erred by revisiting its prima facie findings at the defence stage and by failing to determine whether the accused had rebutted the presumption on the balance of probabilities. The accused failed to rebut; convictions otherwise set aside or restored accordingly and appropriate sentences imposed.

  • 15 Nov 2024

    ABISHEK RAJ A/L RAJESH KANNAN

    Citation
    BA-45A-150-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-45A-150-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to prove custody, control and knowledge by the accused to the requisite prima facie standard: material contradictions in police evidence (notably regarding the accused's identity card and inventory procedures), failure to call material co-occupant witnesses and the accused's recorded denials undermined the prosecution case; consequently the statutory presumption under s37 ADB 1952 did not apply and no prima facie case was made out, entitling the accused to benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  • 10 Aug 2023

    [Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] Johari Bin Ahmad

    Citation
    DJ-83D-1242-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    DJ-83D-1242-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    On maximum evaluation of the evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had custody/control and knowledge of the methamphetamine: SP5's credible close-range contemporaneous observation, intact documented chain of custody, and unchallenged chemical analysis activated the statutory presumption under s.37(d) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; the defence was a bare denial and failure to call alleged co‑actors was not material, therefore conviction and concurrent sentences were upheld.

  • 26 Feb 2021

    PENDAKWARAYA TANG CHIN TART

    Citation
    PA-45A-88-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    PA-45A-88-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt because core police testimony linking the accused to the keys/remote and his driving police to the premises was unreliable and inconsistent, sources of keys were not established, and the remaining circumstantial factors (tenancy, surprise reaction, DNA on two towels) were insufficient collectively to prove animus possidendi or intent to deal; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and acquitted of both charges under s.39B ADB.