DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 [34] The appellant also testified that at the place of arrest before he was taken to the IPD Kuala Pilah, he was not examined physically by any police officer. And this was confirmed by SP15 under cross-examination. [35] S M Mohd Haizat bin Abdul Jalil (SD2) testified for the defence. SD2 testified that on 9.10.2007, he was present at the briefing room of the Kuala Pilah district police headquarters. And that when he entered the briefing room, he saw the appellant was seated and was blindfolded. SD2 did not know who had blindfolded the appellant. From there, the appellant was taken to the garage where the GEN-2 motorcar was parked. There, the appellant was not blindfolded and at a distance he saw some police personnel examined the said motorcar. Under cross-examination, SD2 admitted: (a) that sometimes while interrogating a suspect, the suspect will be blindfolded; and (b) that the purpose of the blindfold is to prevent the suspect from seeing his interrogator. [36] Under cross-examination, SD2 testified that, “Bila mata seseorang itu tidak nampak ia tidak boleh berfikir. Jika boleh melihat ia boleh dan membuat cerita” (When a person is blindfolded, that person cannot think. If that person can see that person will create a story). SD2 agreed that the appellant could recognise his voice and that the appellant
19 said, “Haizat, tolong aku ni projek D9 dan aku” (Haizat, please help me. This is D9’s project and mine). Again, under cross-examination, SD2 testified that when a person is blindfolded, that person could not see at all. Again, under cross-examination, SD2 testified that when he was in the briefing room where the appellant was blindfolded, he did not see SP15 or SP16 in the said room. SD2 was unsure how long the appellant was blindfolded. Under re-examination, SD2 testified that when the appellant was blindfolded, the appellant was not interrogated. [37] SD3, a relative of the appellant, gave evidence for the defence. SD3 said that he is the cousin of the appellant. SD3 testified that the date 9.10.2007 was towards the end of the month of Ramadan. On that date, SD3 met the appellant at the Kuala Pilah Bazaar Ramadan at about 2.30 p.m. (At this juncture, the prosecution objected to the admission of SD3’s evidence because no notice of alibi was given to the prosecution under section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). But the learned JC allowed SD3 to proceed to give his evidence and his Lordship said that a decision would be made at the end of the defence case). So, SD3 continued with his testimony. SD3 said that he met the appellant at the Kuala Pilah Bazaar Ramadan by coincidence. SD3 said that he was alone at that time and so was the appellant. They talked about family matters and exchanged news for about 40 minutes to an hour. While talking, the
Page 1 and 2: 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (B
Page 3 and 4: 3 iaitu sepucuk pistol telah menyeb
Page 5 and 6: 5 10.10.2007. Exhibit “P9” was
Page 7 and 8: 7 robbery and he circulated that in
Page 9 and 10: 9 downwards. When the driver of the
Page 11 and 12: 11 pistol which was located underne
Page 13 and 14: 13 (e) one red and blue coloured ba
Page 15 and 16: 15 motorcar was stopped, SP15 told
Page 17: 17 [32] The appellant testified tha
Page 21 and 22: 21 S : Kamu tidak pernah berjumpa O
Page 23 and 24: 23 irresistible inference that the
Page 25 and 26: 25 advice of Suffian LP in Jayarama
Page 27 and 28: 27 driver’s seat of the Proton GE
Page 29 and 30: 29 CPC for the government chemist t
Page 31 and 32: 31 GEN-2 motorcar had just been use
Page 33 and 34: 33 “Finding dalam P6 ini adalah d
Page 35 and 36: 35 Pilah-Seremban road some 15 kilo
Page 37 and 38: 37 [66] Learned defence counsel was
Page 39 and 40: 39 [74] The strength of the prosecu
Page 41 and 42: 41 these assumptions are mere specu
Page 43 and 44: 43 [86] It was also submitted by le
Page 45 and 46: 45 [91] So, at least ten (10) days
Page 47 and 48: 47 [94] The sum total of it all wou
Page 49 and 50: 49 ini telahpun disangkal seawal ya
Page 51 and 52: 51 findings of fact arrived at by t
Page 53 and 54: Rebuttal evidence 53 [108] The appe
Page 55 and 56: 55 legal basis for the reception of
Page 57 and 58: 57 from the same Styer pistol (exhi
Page 59 and 60: Counsel 59 (1) For the Appellant Ac

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?