rayuan jenayah no: a-05-120-2009 antara mohd kamal bin osman

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 the carrier basket, the Court held that the second accused was in possession of the offending drugs by virtue of section 37(d) of the DDA. In regard to knowledge, at page 194 of the report, KC Vohrah J had this to say: “Why would the motor cyclist, the accused, attempt to escape unless he knew the package he was carrying was non-innocent. There is no dispute that the red plastic bag was in the motor cycle basket between his legs. In my view no doubt has been created on the prosecution’s case as regards the police identification, the accused being the motor cyclist, he attempting to run away, and the discovery of the bag of drugs in the motor cycle basket between his legs affirming that he had control of the drugs.” [29] Here, there was evidence that both SP4 and SP5 saw the appellant riding the said motorcycle with a black coloured plastic bag (exhibit “P5C”) containing the four (4) compressed slabs of plant materials suspected to be cannabis for quite a distance and tailing the appellant before he was apprehended at the place mentioned in the charge. The appellant also attempted to abscond when confronted by SP4 and the police party. The excerpts of the evidence of SP4 at pages 44 to 45 of the appeal record are solid evidence of the appellant’s attempt at absconding: “Sasaran (referring to the appellant) cuba hendak melarikan diri dengan cuba membelok motosikal keluar semula ke jalan. Saya berjaya menahan sasaran (referring to the appellant). Pada masa yang sama pasukan bermotosikal pun sampai dan membantu saya.”
13 [30] Likewise SP5 also testified to the same effect pertaining to the appellant’s unsuccessful attempt at escaping (see page 57 of the appeal record): “Apabila sampai di Batu 2 ½, Simpang, ASP Iyeng (referring to SP4) telah menghimpit motosikal ke tepi kiri jalan. Motosikal itu berhenti. ASP Iyeng (referring to SP4) dan saya turun dari kereta dan cuba menangkap lelaki tersebut. Lelaki tersebut cuba melarikan diri. Belum sempat ia melarikan diri, dengan bantuan anggota lain sasaran (referring to the appellant) telah ditangkap.” [31] Both SP4 and SP5 are credible witnesses and they corroborated one another. Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) (as His Royal Highness then was) in Yap Ee Kong & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 144, 146, FC, emphasised that the corroborative evidence must be credible: “In such a situation the principles enunciated by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Director of Public Prosecutions v Hester [1973] AC 296, 315 should be applied: ‘The essence of corroborative evidence is that one creditworthy witness confirms what another creditworthy witness has said ..... The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible: and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence’.” [32] Knowledge on the part of the appellant in regard to the contents of the black coloured plastic bag (exhibit “P5C”), on the facts of the present appeal, must be judged from the outward conduct of the appellant. In Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor, Koh Chai Cheng v. Public
Page 1 and 2: 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (B
Page 3 and 4: 3 [3] The appellant elected to give
Page 5 and 6: 5 [7] SP4 succeeded in apprehending
Page 7 and 8: 7 [16] When the appellant was about
Page 9 and 10: 9 is not concerned as to the owners
Page 11: 11 was sanctioned by the Federal Co
Page 15 and 16: 15 [36] Here, the learned High Cour
Page 17 and 18: 17 [42] We will now reproduce the d
Page 19 and 20: 19 burden is always on the prosecut
Page 21 and 22: 21 “Bertindak atas maklumat dadah
Page 23: Cases referred to in this judgment:

rayuan jenayah no: a-05-120-2009 antara mohd kamal bin osman

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?