6 May 2025
[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] RAMLI BIN SIWANG HAMZAH
- Citation
- CB-42LB-2-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Court
- High Court
- Case number
- CB-42LB-2-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Although the session judge erred in making a handwriting comparison and drawing conclusions without appropriate expert or acquainted-witness proof, the appellate court found no demonstration that non-compliance with section 257 or the judge's interventions caused prejudice sufficient to overturn the acquittal; critical evidential gap (absence of proved serial number on the urine bottle) produced reasonable doubt and justified affirming the acquittal, so the prosecution's appeal was dismissed.
- Section 257 criminal procedure code (undefended accused)
- Section 256 criminal procedure code (court questioning accused)
- Section 165 evidence act 1950 (judge's power to question)
- Handwriting evidence and section 47 evidence act
- Comparison of signatures under section 73 evidence act
- Prima facie burden and acquittal at close of defence