DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

30 of matter ‘required by law to be reduced to the form of document’ under s 91 of the Evidence Act 1950. It would not therefore be permissible by the operation of s 91 for the prosecution to give any other evidence in proof of the matter except the document (the chemist report) itself.” (g) The impact of section 399 of the CPC was also explained by Abdul Aziz J in Public Prosecutor v. Subramaniam [1969] 1 MLJ 145 in these salient words: “At the close of the prosecution, the learned president discharged the accused on the sole ground that since the radiographer was not called there was no evidence that the fracture shown on the X-ray film was that of the complainant. Consequently he held that there was no prima facie case of grievous hurt. In passing he remarked that the case was poorly investigated. No statements were taken from independent witnesses. Since these independent witnesses were not called to give evidence, it was right he should also invoke section 114(g) of the Evidence Ordinance. In my view the learned president erred in discharging the respondent on the ground that the radiographer was not called. He seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the medical report was properly admitted as evidence under section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that report clearly showed that the complainant suffered a fracture of the skull. The fact that the contents of the report have not been proved to the hilt matters little. In any event under section 399 it is the duty of the respondent to give notice if it requires such strict proof.” (h) The chemist report in exhibit “P6” also confirmed that the bullet retrieved from the left shoulder of the victim – SP10, came from the Styer pistol (exhibit “P23”). The chemist report in exhibit “P6” also confirmed that when the chemist received the Styer pistol (exhibit “P23”), it had gun powder residue. This showed that the Styer pistol (exhibit “P23”) that was seized from the
31 GEN-2 motorcar had just been used. And that Styer pistol (exhibit “P23”) was in the possession of the appellant. [54] The learned JC who had audio-visual advantage accepted the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses. We declined to interfere with the findings of the learned JC. This Court in Andy bin Bagindah v Public Prosecutor [2000] 3 MLJ 644, 647, echoed the same sentiments: “Since this involved the credibility of witnesses, we held that the learned judge was a better person to decide and an appellate court ought not to interfere with such findings.” [55] In regard to the Styer pistol (exhibit “P23”) that was test-fired by SP12 and found to be serviceable, the learned JC made the following findings of fact (see page 20 of the appeal record at Jilid 1): “(i) Pistol STYER dengan nombor siri 031096 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai ‘PISTOL’ tersebut) adalah satu senjata api bagi maksud Seksyen 2 Akta tersebut Keterangan ASP Nordin (SP12) iaitu seorang pegawai polis daripada Bahagian Persenjataan, IPK Negeri SembiIan jelas menunjukkan pistol tersebut mempunyai laras dan cas letupan. Pistol yang diuji tersebut telah mengeluarkan letupan dan laporan kimia (P6) juga telah menunjukkan pistol tersebut boleh melepaskan tembakan. (ii) Pistol tersebut adalah di dalam keadaan ‘serviceable’. Berdasarkan keterangan SP12 yang telah membuat uji tembak dan laporan kimia P6, adalah diputuskan bahawa pistol tersebut dalam keadaan serviceable. (iii) Pistol tersebut berada dalam milikkan OKT sebelum kejadian. Menurut buku persenjataan POLIS 74C (Eksibit P35), pistol tersebut telah dikeluarkan kepada OKT oleh seorang anggota polis di IPD Dang Wangi pada 4.10.2007. Pistol tersebut tidak pernah dipulangkan semula ke sektor persenjataan. Tiada apaapa cadangan oleh pihak pembelaan bahawa pistol tersebut ada pada orang lain sebelum kejadian pada 9.10.2007 jam 3.15 petang melainkan pada OKT.
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 and 18: 17 [32] The appellant testified tha
Page 19 and 20: 19 said, “Haizat, tolong aku ni p
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: 29 CPC for the government chemist t
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?