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

20
was prejudiced. Reliance was then placed on the case of Alcontara a/l
Ambross Anthony v Public Prosecutor [1996] 1 MLJ 209, FC. But,
factually speaking Alcontara’s case are poles apart from the present
appeal. In Alcontara, the cautioned statement was made one day after his
arrest and in it he mentioned about Che Mat, and Che Mat’s telephone
number and place of abode. Here, in the present appeal, there was no
cautioned statement at all.
[51] Learned defence counsel argued that the defence put up by the
appellant was a reasonable defence. And that the appellant had explained
about the two raincoats. It was, according to learned defence counsel, a
case of mere possession. In regard to the two raincoats, we have this to
say. The search list marked as exhibit “P8” as found at page 154 of the
appeal record made no mention of any raincoat at all. The photographs at
pages 143 to 149 do not show the existence of the two raincoats as alleged
by the appellant.
[52] Finally, another point worth noting is this. SP4 lodged a police
report on 28.2.2001 – the very day when the offence was committed. And
that police report marked as exhibit “P10” was lodged at about 10.10 p.m.
It showed consistency and was not at variance with the evidence of SP4
during the trial. That police report (exhibit “P10”) was worded in this way
(see page 157 of the appeal record):