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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 its entirety or not at all. A court is fully competent, for good and cogent reasons, to accept one part of the testimony of a witness and to reject the other. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinize each evidence very carefully as this involves the question of weight to be given to certain evidence in particular circumstances.” [37] In the present appeal, the High Court preferred the evidence of SP5 and SP6 as opposed to the evidence of the appellant. At page 18 of the appeal record, this was what the High Court said: “Besides that in comparing the evidence of SP5 and SP6 against that of the accused I chose to believe the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as their evidence was spontaneous and consistent as compared (to) the accused, who was hesitant in answering certain questions.” [38] Now, the information by the appellant to SP5 was clear. It led to the recovery of the drugs on the grass in front of the said lorry. Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 enacts as follows: “When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of that information, whether the information amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.” [39] The rationale of section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 is quite simple. If the information by the accused is supported by the discovery of a certain fact, that information may be presumed to be true and that information cannot be construed to have been extracted. According to Sir John Beaumont in the Privy Council case of Pulukuri Kottaya and others v. Emperor AIR [1947] PC 67, 70:
17 “Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence; but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.” [40] In regard to the information under section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950, the High Court at pages 19 to 20 of the appeal record had this to say: “The accused had also in this case gave information leading to the discovery of the drugs which shows that he had full knowledge of the drugs as well as control over them. As to the manner as to how to evaluate the information leading to discovery I referred to the case of Krishna Rao Gurunathi v PP [2009] 2 CLJ 603: It should be borne in mind that the hurdles to overcome for the admission of cautioned statement and for discovery statement are quite distinct. The former demands voluntariness at the time of making it and that there should be absence of any form of oppression, inducement, threat or promise to the maker. The latter does not require those prerequisites save that the court has the discretion to exclude it on the ground that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. (See: Goi Ching Ang v. Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 CLJ 829; Kesavan Petchayo v. Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 CLJ 846). In the case before me the probative value of the information leading to discover far outweighed its prejudicial value.” [41] When asked as to the whereabouts of the drugs, the appellant indicated to SP5 the direction where the drugs were hidden by puckering
Page 1 and 2: 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (B
Page 3 and 4: The prosecution’s case 3 [3] On 1
Page 5 and 6: 5 then asked the appellant “ada b
Page 7 and 8: 7 itu salah seorang memukul perut s
Page 9 and 10: 9 [18] According to SD2, the police
Page 11 and 12: 11 “It was SP5’s evidence that
Page 13 and 14: 13 (a) bringing the police team to
Page 15: 15 [33] In Chean Siong Guat v. Publ
Page 19 and 20: 19 Yee Ya Mang v Public Prosecutor
Page 21 and 22: 21 cannabis in question. In short,
Page 23 and 24: 23 [53] We have given our careful t
Page 25 and 26: (19) Mohamed Alias v. Public Prosec

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?