rayuan jenayah no: c-05-146-2009 di antara azhar bin lazim

14
defence to put its case across can never, standing by itself, relieve the
prosecution of its duty of establishing the charge of trafficking in the
dangerous drugs, to wit, 3,917 grammes of cannabis as per the charge
beyond any reasonable doubt (Alcontara a/l Ambross Anthony v. Public
Prosecutor [1996] 1 CLJ 705, FC).
[30] Seen in its correct perspective, the evidence of SP5 and SP6 are
credible. There were minor discrepancies in their evidence. But generally
they support one another and it was in the nature of a direct evidence
showing that the appellant had exclusive possession and was trafficking in
the dangerous drugs in question.
[31] As police officers both SP5 and SP6 were carrying out their
duties in accordance with the law and there was no reason for them to lie.
In Public Prosecutor v. Mohamed Ali [1962] 28 MLJ 257, Thomson CJ
had this to say about the evidence of a police witness (see page 258 of the
report):
“When a Police witness says something that is not inherently
improbable his evidence must in the first instance be accepted.”
[32] Continuing at the same page, this was what his Lordship said:
“In the absence of contradiction, however, and in the absence of any
element of inherent improbability the evidence of any witness,
whether a Police witness or not, who gives evidence on affirmation,
should normally be accepted.”