DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

38
without exhibit “P5”, there are overwhelming circumstantial evidence to call
the appellant to answer both the charges at the prima facie stage.
[70] That being the case, no more shall be said about exhibit “P5”.
[71] Next, it was argued that the second charge in regard to the
commission of an armed robbery should have incorporated the name of the
deceased and the failure to do so was said to have prejudiced the
appellant. Although this ground was not incorporated in the Petition of
Appeal, it must be stated that the appellant knew about the existence of the
deceased and, consequently, he was not prejudiced. And may we add that
by virtue of section 156 of the CPC, the appellant was not misled by such
an error or omission.
Inadequate consideration of the defence evidence
[72] The learned JC considered in extenso the defence of the
appellant and judicially appreciated the evidence of SD1, SD2 and SD3 as
against that of the prosecution and we see nothing wrong with the
approach adopted by his Lordship.
[73] It must be borne in mind that:
“An appellate court would be slow to disturb a trial court’s finding of
fact in the absence of any perverse and unwarranted finding on the
totality of the evidence before it.”
(See Teng Howe Sing v. PP [2008] 5 CLJ 186, CA).