DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

43
[86] It was also submitted by learned defence counsel that the
defence of the appellant was not a bare denial. According to learned
defence counsel a bare denial envisages the situation where the appellant
testifies and states, “I did not do it”, and the appellant then sits down.
That, according to learned defence counsel, would be a defence of bare
denial unsupported by other evidence. Here, according to learned defence
counsel, the appellant gave evidence and led a concrete and substantial
evidence of other events supported by SD2 and SD3 which showed a
completely different version as to what had actually transpired. Learned
defence counsel submitted that the version of the appellant in his defence
merit proper consideration and evaluation. With respect, no amount of
linguistic manoeuvring can be advanced to say that the defence of the
appellant was not an alibi defence. It was, pure and simple, a defence of an
alibi and it is caught under section 402A of the CPC which states as
follows:
“Notice to be given of defence of alibi
402A. (1) Where in any criminal trial the accused seeks to put
forward a defence of alibi, evidence in support of it shall not be
admitted unless the accused shall have given notice in writing of it to
the Public Prosecutor at least ten days before the commencement of
the trial.
(2) The notice required by subsection (1) shall include particulars of
the place where the accused claims to have been at the time of the
commission of the offence with which he is charged, together with
the names and addresses of any witnesses whom he intends to call
for the purpose of establishing his alibi.”