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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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):
21 “Bertindak atas maklumat dadah, pada 28/2/2001 jam lebih kurang 2040 hrs, saya mengetuai sepasukan Polis yang terdiri daripada C/Insp Ragavan, Insp Ng Wei Boon dan anggota Jabatan Narkotik IPK Perak serta anggota Bahagian Narkotik IPD Taiping telah menahan sebuah Motosikal Jenis Modenas Kriss No Pendaftaran AEB 2680 yang ditunggang oleh seorang (lelaki) di tepi jalan Simpang Batu 2½ Simpang Taiping, Perak setelah perkenalkan diri pegawai Polis. Saspek cuba melarikan diri tetapi berjaya ditangkap setelah berlaku pergelutan. Selepas itu saya terus membuat pemeriksaan ke atas badan saspek serta motosikal saspek. Dalam pemeriksaan tersebut, saya telah menjumpai satu beg Plastik hitam yang terletak di dalam bakul motosikal saspek. Saya buka beg Plastik hitam tersebut dapati terdapat (4) ketulan mampat yang dibalut dengan plastik lutsinar setiap ketulan disyaki dadah ganja. Saya rampas barang kes dan memberitahu kesalahan kepada tangkapan lalu dibawa ke balai untuk buat repot Polis. Butir tangkapan seperti berikut: Nama : MOHD KAMAL BIN OSMAN KPT : 720512-08-6609 (A 2290687) Alamat: No.30, Jalan Siakap Simpang Tiga, Kuala Kurau, Perak Kerja : Nelayan Sekian laporan saya.” [53] It must be borne in mind that there was no cross-examination of SP4 to show that SP4’s police report was made to put the appellant in trouble. [54] Since the learned High Court Judge indirectly relied on section 37(d) of the DDA, we found that the defence of the appellant had fallen far short of rebutting the presumption of possession on the balance of probabilities and as such, it had not raised a reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s guilt which the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt.
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 and 12: 11 was sanctioned by the Federal Co
Page 13 and 14: 13 [30] Likewise SP5 also testified
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: 19 burden is always on the prosecut
Page 23: Cases referred to in this judgment:

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?