DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

52
[105] And Illustration (a) to section 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 is
useful to refer to. It reads as follows:
The court may presume –
“ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the
theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be
stolen, unless he can account for his possession;”
[106] The Court may presume that the appellant was in possession of
the eight (8) gold chains that were found in the front right pocket of the
appellant’s trousers soon after the robbery and the appellant must account
for his possession of those gold chains within the meaning of section 114
Illustration (a) to the Evidence Act 1950.
[107] And whether the deceased went by the name of ”Zulkifli bin
Ali” like what was mentioned by SP1 or by the name of “Zulkifli” as
mentioned by the appellant in his defence or by the name of “Zulkipli bin
Ali” as mentioned in the police report of SP15, in our judgment, it does not
affect the substratum of the prosecution’s case in that it was the appellant
who committed those two offences as per the two charges based on the
solid circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.