DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

49
ini telahpun disangkal seawal yang mungkin di peringkat
kes pendakwaan melalui keterangan SP15 dan SP16.”
[98] Continuing at page 38 of the appeal record at Jilid 1, the learned
JC had this to say:
“50. Pada pendapat Mahkamah, keterangan SP15 dan SP16
mengenai penemuan rantai-rantai emas P13-P20 dari poket
seluar jeans yang dipakai oleh OKT adalah ‘inherently
probable’.”
[99] It must be borne in mind that apart from the bundle of jewelleries
which SP15 found in the front right pocket of the appellant’s trousers, glass
splinters too were found. Surely SP15 did not put those glass splinters
there too. It must be recalled that SP10 narrated how the shorter male
robber had used a hammer and smashed the glass showcase and the
robbers then scooped the jewelleries and put them inside the pockets of
their jeans. That would have explained the recovery of those jewelleries
and the glass splinters inside the appellant’s trousers.
[100] The assessment of the evidence pertaining to the frame-up
made by the learned JC cannot be faulted. At pages 39 to 40 of the appeal
record at Jilid 1, his Lordship had this to say:
“51. Menurut OKT semasa mata beliau diikat dengan kain tuala
beliau boleh melihat tangan SP15 mengambil sesuatu dari baju
SP15 kemudian memasukkan tangannya ke dalam poket seluar
OKT. Apabila dicadangkan oleh pihak pendakwaan OKT
bersetuju bahawa jika SP15 ingin memasukkan sesuatu di
dalam poket seluar OKT maka ia tidak perlu menunggu mata
OKT diikat dengan kain tuala. Menurut SD2 anggota D-9,
seseorang tidak boleh melihat apa-apa jika mata diikat dan tiada