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

9
is not concerned as to the ownership of the said motorcycle but rather the
possession of the black coloured plastic bag (exhibit “P5C”) that contained
the dangerous drugs found in the carrier basket of the said motorcycle.
[24] The learned High Court Judge rightly referred to the Court of
Appeal case of PP v. Letchumanan Suppiah [2006] 1 CLJ 557 and his
Lordship then decided that section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 did not
apply and it cannot be invoked against the prosecution for the non-calling
of the appellant’s wife. We are concerned here with the custody and control
of the black coloured plastic bag (exhibit “P5C”) found in the carrier basket
of the motorcycle which cannot be related to the ownership of the
motorcycle on which the appellant was riding. That black coloured plastic
bag (exhibit “P5C”) was within sight of the appellant as he rode the said
motorcycle on that fateful day. There was not even an iota of evidence
linking the appellant’s wife to the drugs at all. There was no cross-
examination of SP4 and SP5 that the drugs belonged to the appellant’s
wife.
[25] The prosecution’s case hinged on the evidence of SP4 whose
evidence was corroborated by SP5. The totality of the evidence led by the
prosecution pointed solely to the culpability of the appellant. No one else
was involved. It is our judgment, even without calling the appellant’s wife,