The prosecution must exclude the possibility of access to incriminating drugs by others to establish possession beyond reasonable doubt.

[1] The Prosecution contended that PW12 - Vani is a hostile and interested witness and was called as prosecution witness in order to exclude her as a person to be in custody, control or possession of the drugs found inside the dark brown wooden cupboard with glass panels at the said house. PW12 in her testimony denied possession and knowledge of the drugs in question and is clearly an interested witness as she is the wife of the Accused. During her testimony, the Prosecution contended that there were inconsistencies especially 5 major inconsistencies which contradicted to her statement made pursuant to s 112 Criminal Procedure Code. (See pp 29-32 of the Notes of Proceedings)

[2] The Prosecution further contended that PW12 understood whatever questions and communication during the recording statement of her s 112 Statement. PW12 being a younger generation of an Indian Malaysian who lived in peninsular Malaysia all the while, went to school and was educated from Standard 1 to Form 5 thus it is impossible to believe that PW12 could not understand the Malay Language even though she testified that she did not sit for Bahasa Melayu Paper during her SPM examination.

[3] The Prosecution contended that there are contradictions between the oral testimony that PW12 gave in court and her police statement marked as exh P12 and sought to impeach her.

[4] In her testimony, PW12 stated that there were other tenants who stayed on the 1st floor of the said house. PW12 stated that she told the police that the Accused did not know about the drugs and that the other tenants staying in the house were 2 Tamil Indians but they were accompanied by other Indians. PW12 further stated that these tenants were in the said house that morning and they left at 9.30 am and only after that the police arrived.

[5] PW12 further testified that one of the 2 Indian persons was named "Panjang" and that she could recognise the other tenant too. PW12 also stated that she and the Accused paid RM400.00 in rental while the balance of RM 1000.00 was paid by the other 2 tenants living upstairs. PW12 also stated that the whole house was accessible to the tenants. PW12 also stated that there was furniture on the 1st floor of the said house.

[6] Even though there are contradictions between the oral testimony of PW12 and her statement made under s 112 Criminal Procedure Code which is marked as exh P12, this court finds that there is a good explanation given by PW12 for the contradictions which is that she was not provided with a tamil interpreter by the police at the material time. The Recording Officer of PW12's s 112 statement (Exhibit P12) was an Inspector Wee So Guan who recorded PW12's statement in Bahasa Malayu, a language which PW12 is not fluent in as she only knows how to speak pasar malay, having dropped out of school without sitting for her SPM exams

[7] It is noted that during PW12's second interrogation, having being provided with a Tamil interpreter, in the presence of the learned DPP that she gave the correct information with the clarifications.

[8] In the case of Muthusamy v. PP , 1947 MarsdenLR 261 , the court held inter alia as follows:-

"Differences may be divided into four classes:-

(a) Minor differences, not amounting to discrepancies;

(b) Apparent discrepancies;

(c) Serious discrepancies;

(d) Material contradictions.

Minor differences are attributable mainly to differences in interpretation and the way in which the statement was taken and sometimes to differences in recollection. A perfectly truthful witness may mention a detail on one occasion and not remember it on another A mere omission is hardly ever a discrepancy. The police statement is usually much briefer than the evidenc