Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 114(g) evidence act

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2026

ZULHUSNI BIN ZAINIZAM MOHD FIRDAUS BIN MOHD SALLEH PENCELAH SYARIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA

Citation

BJ-A53KJ-240-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BJ-A53KJ-240-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found on the balance of probabilities that plaintiff proved the defendant vehicle was the cause and awarded damages accordingly after evaluating conflicting police reports, witness evidence and expert medical reports; pleadings and burden of proof principles governed scope of issues and court applied s114(g) where eyewitness not called.
19 Dec 2025

MUHAMAD HARIS BIN MOHMAD JIDIN

Citation

AP-83D-395-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AP-83D-395-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because the prosecution presented two reasonable and conflicting inferences about where bag P15 was taken from, and failed to call or offer the material witness Mohd Zaki or to challenge the investigator's acknowledgment, a reasonable doubt existed and no prima facie case was established; accused must be released at the close of the prosecution case.
24 Nov 2025

Mohd Izad Bin Matap

Citation

B-05(SH)-177-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

B-05(SH)-177-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found the trial judge correctly preferred the prosecution's account over the defence: objective evidence (backpack on appellant, chemistry report) and quantities established custody, control, knowledge and trafficking; D22 was unreliable and contradicted by SD2's plea and testimony; no miscarriage of justice or legal error was shown, therefore conviction and sentences are safe and affirmed.
2 Sept 2025

MOHD MUSNIZAM BIN MUSA

Citation

J-05(SH)-650-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-650-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

For Rayuan No.650 the Court allowed the appeal because material, internal contradictions in the prosecution witness (SP4) testimony about which motorcycle/basket contained the drugs, combined with the prosecution's failure to call a material co‑detainee witness (Muhamad Fakhriy), justified drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act and created reasonable doubt; convictions for the three charges arising from the roadside arrest were therefore unsafe and quashed. For Rayuan No.9 the Court dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence (appellant directing officers to the ap…
31 Dec 2024

OMAR HAMZAH BIN KHALIT

Citation

DI-62JS-1-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-62JS-1-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applying maximum evaluation to prosecution evidence the court found material inconsistencies in witness accounts, failure to call a pivotal alibi witness (Koperal Zainal) permitting an adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act, lack of identification of seized exhibits and absence of corroborative DNA or clear temporal linkage from medical evidence; cumulatively the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and the accused was therefore acquitted and discharged.
6 Dec 2024

1. ) VIGNESH A/L MURUGAN 2. ) CHITRADEVI A/P KANAVADI

Citation

BA-45A-48-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-48-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found that although prosecution established initial elements of offence, significant evidential gaps and doubts existed: failure to call and examine B3/B4 (despite P36 indicating they were material), inconsistent/unreliable answers by arresting officer regarding alleged PJCC negotiations, prolonged uncontrolled custody of exhibits, and credible defence evidence raising alternative explanation that drugs belonged to B3; those doubts cumulatively meant prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquittal was required.
28 Nov 2024

MUHAMAD NURASYDAN BIN MOHD RAFI MOHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN HALIM

Citation

DA-A53KJ-371-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A53KJ-371-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court accepted the plaintiff's uncontested testimony and demeanor as credible, applied Evidence Act s114(g) to infer unfavorable withheld evidence, found defendant 90% liable and plaintiff 10% contributorily negligent, and awarded damages of RM180,000 for severe traumatic brain injury, RM90,000 for right eye injury (global) and RM8,000 for future surgical costs after assessing expert reports and the Compendium ranges.
11 Jul 2024

MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN

Citation

KA-44(A)-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

KA-44(A)-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 311 CPC confers discretion to stay execution but applicant failed to establish 'special circumstances' sufficient to exercise that discretion; employment status as a public servant and unsubstantiated assertion that s114(g) was applied are insufficient and speculative; absence of supporting trial grounds/transcript and the seriousness and length of the sentences militated against granting suspension; therefore both the application to stay the conviction and to suspend execution of sentences were dismissed.
22 Feb 2024

AROKIASAMY A/L SANDANASAMY

Citation

PA-62D-227-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PA-62D-227-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

After four years and four prosecution witnesses the prosecution had not located the vehicle owner and did not show the case could be prosecuted expeditiously; continuing the matter as DNAA would subject the accused to a continuous threat of prosecution and be unjust; sections 254(3) and 173(g) KTJ authorize mid‑trial acquittal in such circumstances; the separate s39B charge was unrelated and did not prevent acquittal; accordingly the accused is acquitted and discharged.
16 Jan 2023

AIDIL HAZRUL BIN BOKHARI

Citation

AF-83D-124-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AF-83D-124-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The chemist's evidence established the nature and weight of the drug, but the prosecution failed to prove possession because proximity alone did not establish knowledge or exclusive control; non-calling of the accused's wife created a material gap. On maximum evaluation a prima facie case was not made out, therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged without being called to make his defence.