SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 445

HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
PP – Appellant
Versus
RENGADORAI PERUMAL & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: 45B-05-06-2016 & 45B-06-06-2016]



Petitioner Advocates:Mustaqim Sukarno ,Respondent Advocate: G K Sritharan

Witness testimony may be impeached based on material contradictions, leading to complete disregard of the impeached evidence.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 – Sections 145 and 155 – Impeachment of witness testimony – Application to impeach the credibility of PW21 allowed due to serious discrepancies and contradictions in his statements – Testimony ruled unreliable and expunged from record. (Paras 12, 75)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code – Section 112 – Discrepancies in witness statements must be examined, but discrepancies alone do not automatically render a witness unreliable. (Paras 20, 28)

Facts of the case: The prosecution sought to impeach the evidence of PW21, who testified regarding the Deceased, citing material contradictions in his police statement and court testimony.

Findings of Court: The court found that PW21’s testimony was tainted with discrepancies and ruled it unreliable, thus allowing the impeachment application and expunging his evidence.

Issues: The court addressed the reliability of PW21's testimony amid substantial contradictions between his oral and prior police statement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that serious discrepancies in a witness’s testimony could warrant impeachment, rendering the witness's evidence inadmissible if successfully impeached.

Result: The witness's testimony was expunged from the records.

JUDGMENT

Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an oral application by the Learned Deputy Public Prosecutor to impeach the evidence of a prosecution witness PW21 who was said to have departed from the police statement he made pursuant to s 112 Criminal Procedure Code . It was applied for by the Learned Deputy in the middle of the evidence-in-chief of PW21.

[2] The application for this impeachment is made pursuant to ss 145 and 155 Evidence Act 1950 .

Background Facts

[3] PW21 knew the Deceased (Aris bin Hakim) since 8 years ago because they stay in the same village ie Kampung Paya, Layang- Layang and on the 13 September 2015 between 5 pm to 6 pm PW21 was at Kampung Jaya Sepakat, Layang-Layang. Then he went out of his house to purchase some drugs. The place or station to transact in drugs (which is colloquially known as "port") is in the Parit area. At about 6 pm, he arrived at the "port".

[4] He saw a lot of people at the "port". They are Malays, Chinese and Indians. A few minutes later he saw the Deceased came on a motorcycle with a friend Jufri.

[5] The Deceased went to sit with a group of people and suddenly there was a commotion. That group was about 20 metres away from where PW21 was seated. PW21 soon left the place. During the commotion he did not see any weapon. Some were holding parangs (local machetes) but nothing happened. He saw the Deceased quarrelling. He could not identify the Indian man who was quarrelling with the Deceased.

[6] At this stage the learned Deputy applied to cross examine PW21 because of material contradictions in his evidence in court and that of the statement he gave to the police pursuant to s 112 Criminal Procedure Code .

[7] The material parts are found as follows:

i. Page 2 as highlighted in coloured pen.

ii. Page 3 at para 1, middle page and para 2.

iii. Page 4, para 2 & 4.

[8] I perused over the marked paragraphs of the various pages of PW21 statement taken by the police pursuant to s 112 Criminal Procedure Code . I found there are material discrepancies with the oral testimony given on oath on the witness stand in court. I allowed the application to cross examine PW21.

[9] PW21 admitted that he had his statement taken by an Inspector in the Malay Language.

[10] He understood the questions posed to him and answered them and there was no problem in communicating with the Police Inspector. PW21 admitted he signed on the statement and showed to the court his signature on the statement at the bottom of every page and at the end of his statement on the last page. He admitted that statement as his and upon the Learned Deputy's application, this court marked it as P50.

[11] The Learned Deputy then applied for impeachment proceedings to commence against PW21 and I allowed it. The court invited the Learned Deputy to commence the proceedings:

i. In his testimony on oath, PW21 told the court he entered the "port" about 6 pm but left about 6.15 pm to 6.20 pm but at p 4 of his section-112-statement (P50) he told the Inspector that he was there for over 1 hour.

The explanation PW21 offered was that he could not remember the time but it was between 6 pm - 7 pm but he only remember that it was before dusk sets in.

ii. In his oral testimony he told the court that he does NOT know Nandu while at pp 2, 3 and 4 of his police statement (P50), he knew who Nandu was.

His explanation was that he did not know who is Nandu but merely heard of his name because he is a "tokan" (drugs supplier / pusher).

iii. At p 2 of P50 he said that he and Jufri went to pick up Aris because Nandu told him to do so but he told the court in oral testimony that he did not know Nandu.

His explanation was that he did not know Nandu but he heard of his name because many people kept mentioning that name to him.

iv. PW21 told the court that only when he was on the way home from the "port" he crossed path with the Deceased but in P51 he told the police he was loitering or hanging around ("melepak") at the "port" when he met the Deceased.

His


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top