DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

23
irresistible inference that the appellant had the required intent
proscribed by section 3 of the Act. The appellant’s submission on
this point accordingly fails.”
[45] It is pertinent to mention that the appeal by Low Soo Song to
the Federal Court was dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeal
was affirmed vide [2009] 3 CLJ 309.
[46] In the present appeal, the strands of circumstantial evidence
connecting the appellant to the two charges constitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt. We have the evidence of SP10 and SP8 who testified
that two individuals entered the goldsmith’s shop wearing face masks,
black jackets, jeans and crash helmets and that one was taller than the
other. According to them, the shorter individual carried a hammer. SP10
also described how he was shot on his left shoulder and fell to the ground.
While the shorter individual used a hammer to smash the glass showcase
and the robbers then scooped the jewelleries and put them inside the
pockets of their jeans. The robbers then fled using a motorcycle.
[47] The movements of the robbers were narrated by SP3 who then
alerted the police which led to the arrest of the appellant and the deceased.
That the service pistol was assigned to the appellant and was proved to
have been fired together with the recovery by SP15 of a bundle of
jewelleries mixed with glass splinters inside the front right pocket of the
appellant’s trousers pointed to the guilt of the appellant. The allegation that