The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence and suppression of material facts can lead to acquittal.

Introduction

Preface

[1] It is this court's decision to acquit the accused charged with an offence of drug trafficking pursuant to s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) and punishable under s 39B(2) of the DDA, at end of the case of prosecution.

[2] It is hinged on a maximum evaluation of the prosecution's evidence, finding it riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, thus failing to establish a prima facie case.

[3] At the close of the prosecution's case, pursuant to s 180(1) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC /Act 593 the court must determine if the prosecution has adduced credible evidence, free from reasonable doubt proving each ingredient of the offence. This requires a maximum and rigorous evaluation of the evidence. This principle, established in cases like PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar ; ; ; , mandates that the court conducts a thorough assessment of the prosecution's evidence. It involves evaluating the credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses, considering their demeanour and the consistency of their testimony. The goal is to ascertain if the prosecution's case remains intact with only one version. If conflicting versions emerge, leading to reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Hence, the pivotal issue, is the case of the prosecution intact with only one version. In the present case three of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) were vehemently cross-examined and version of the accused was put to them at the earliest opportunity.

Case Of The Prosecution

[4] The accused in this case was arrested across the road at a night market area. He was then brought back to the area where he had dropped a blue plastic bag, allegedly containing one slab of cannabis, P10, the impugned drug cannabis weighing 1006.4 gram. The place of arrest was at Jalan Adil, Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur.

[5] The raiding officer SP1 had simply testified on the following:

• He acted on information received.

• He proceeded to conduct surveillance for about ten minutes at the place of arrest.

• He and his team saw the accused standing on the side of the road carrying a blue plastic bag P10.

• When he approached the accused and identified as a police officer, the accused had dropped P10 and fled the scene.

• He was then arrested and brought back to the place where P10 was dropped.

[6] Premised on SPI's testimony, the prosecution has taken a route that the accused was in fact caught red-handed with P10, and as he attempted to flee the scene, knowledge is sought to be inferred by this court, that he fled because he was in possession of a contraband item, ie dangerous drug.

[7] But glaringly, there is another version of the events which was not disclosed to the court by SP1, but unearthed when he was cross-examined at length. The version is:

• The accused was asked by his friend Ruben to make a delivery to another individual Mior at the place of arrest.

• The delivery was to be made in a white car which was rented by Ruben using the SOCAR application.

• The SOCAR application is managed and operated vide handphone.

• It was at that point when he was waiting to deliver, he was accosted by SP1 and his team.

• He ran to flee the scene, as he was wanted for a crime involving a fight where a police officer was assaulted, which took place on 18 September 2022 leading to his arrest on 29 September 2022.

• The version of the accused is put to PW1 and the rest, orally but also supported by various police reports, including D16 which was lodged way before the trial of this case on 10 August 2023; D19 which was an arrest report of Mior