Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Suppression of evidence

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2024

1. ) Khatijah binti Md Ibrahim 2. ) Mansor bin Abdul Manan Northern Skyline SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCvC-241-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-241-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the SP Order was obtained by fraud or suppression of evidence; the court found a concluded contract existed, P2 acted as P1's authorised representative, the SP Order was not procured by fraud and the impeachment suit is also barred by res judicata in the wider sense; accordingly Plaintiffs' claim to set aside the SP Order is dismissed with costs RM50,000.
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: key alternative owners or persons with access (Hariharan, Suresh/@Fire and other occupants) were not excluded; prosecution failed to secure attendance of essential witnesses and did not produce CCTV/visitor records; existence of unexplained pink bag and unanalysed phones further created reasonable doubt. Adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act were warranted. On maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore accused were acqui…
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45A-83-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession and knowledge by the accused because others had access to the unit, key persons (Hariharan and Suresh @ Fire) and material evidence (CCTV, visitor logs, seized phones, a pink bag) were not produced or explained by the prosecution; these omissions amounted to suppression or left reasonable doubt and justified adverse inferences under s114(g), therefore no prima facie case was made out and the accused were acquitted and discharged without being called to defend themselves.
6 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Citation

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove exclusive possession or knowledge: material alternatives (co-occupants and identified suspects) had access to the unit, prosecution failed to call key witnesses and withheld or did not produce material evidence (pink bag, CCTV, visitor book, phones) giving rise to adverse inferences under s114(g); on maximum evaluation the court was not prepared to convict so accused were acquitted without being called to defend themselves.
6 Mar 2023

IVORY PROPERTIES SDN BHD 1. ) DATO' MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN AZHAR 2. ) ABDUL HAADI BIN AZHAR

Citation

PA-22NCvC-166-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-166-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 34 r.2(3) to proceed with the trial and, because defendants failed to file witness statements and comply with directions without an acceptable excuse, barred the defendants from adducing their defence while permitting them to cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses; documentary evidence established the representations and terms of investment and plaintiffs proved their claims on the balance of probabilities, so the plaintiffs' claims were allowed with costs.
24 Mar 2022

MOHD HIZRUL AMIR BIN MOHD HELMI

Citation

TA-83D-386-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83D-386-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because material contradictions and inconsistencies between oral testimony and the CCTV recording, failures in investigative procedure (including non-seizure/examination of mobile phones and unexplained omissions in seizure documentation), and the resultant attack on witnesses' credibility and chain of custody meant the court would not be prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) Khatijah binti Md Ibrahim 2. ) Mansor bin Abdul Manan Northern Skyline SDN BHD

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

IVORY PROPERTIES SDN BHD 1. ) DATO' MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN AZHAR 2. ) ABDUL HAADI BIN AZHAR

MOHD HIZRUL AMIR BIN MOHD HELMI