Back
2013 MarsdenLR 2413
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
RAMAN KUNJIRAMAN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-260-10-2011]
Possession of substantial quantities of drugs establishes a strong presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act, and a defendant's silence can impact the evaluation of their defense.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a), 39B(2), 37(da), and 37(d) - Trafficking in narcotics - Appellant charged with possession of 265.61 grams of drugs found on his lap - No reasonable doubt raised by the appellant, leading to conviction and death sentence upheld by the Federal Court. (Paras 1, 2, 15, 19, 28)
(B) Presumptions of possession - The court affirmed that possession of substantial amounts of drugs creates a strong presumption of trafficking, invoking both ss 37(da) and 37(d) appropriately, without breaching double presumption rules. (Paras 1, 40)
(C) Adverse inference from silence - The court validated the trial judge's comments regarding the appellant’s silence about the accomplice, 'Noi', as relevant to evaluating the credibility of the defense. (Paras 46, 55)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was found with narcotics during surveillance by police, which led to his arrest. Despite a defense claiming ignorance of the bag's contents, evidence supported possession.
Findings of Court:
The High Court confirmed the appellant's possession and knowledge of the drugs based on the circumstances. The Court of Appeal found no basis to reverse the conviction.
Issues: The appeal addressed the handling of statutory presumptions regarding possession and trafficking, and the implications of the appellant's silence on his defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the presumption of trafficking was applicable based on the quantity of drugs, and the appellant had actual knowledge of their presence. Inferences about possession were corroborated by the appellant’s actions and failure to provide credible explanation or witnesses.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. events leading to appellant's arrest (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. defence claims and assertions (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. judicial findings on evidence (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
[1] The appellant was charged for trafficking in 265.61 grams of drugs comprising 70.20 grams of heroin and 195.41 grams of monoacetylmorphines in front of Hotel Desa Jaya, Jalan Permatang 5, Taman Desa Jaya, Ulu Tiram in the District of Johor Bahru in the State of Johor Darul Ta'zim on 2nd May, 2002 at 4.30pm an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('Act') punishable under s 39B(2) of the Act.
[2] At the end of the defence case the appellant failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and was found guilty as charged by the learned High Court Judge and sentenced to death. His ensuing appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed hence this appeal to the Federal Court of Malaysia.
Relevant Facts Of The Prosecution's Case
[3] The facts of the prosecution's case relevant to this appeal are as follows. Upon receiving information of a drug trafficking activity, PW5, Chief Inspector Arsad bin Kamaruddin, conducted a briefing pertaining to the said matter to some 10 police personnel at Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen, Johor.
[4] After the briefing, PW5 led the police party to Hotel Desa Jaya, Jalan Pematang 5, Taman Desa Jaya, Ulu Tiram, Johor Bahru ('the scene'). On arrival they saw a car bearing registration number JGK 9479 ('the car') parked on the side of the road in front of Hotel Desa Jaya. The appellant was seen sitting alone inside the car.
[5] The police party then closed in by obstructing the car at both ends with their vehicles. Whilst the front part of the car was blocked by a van carrying the first group of police personnel, the rear of the car was blocked by the second group of police officers in their 'Kancil car'.
[6] PW6, Corporal Mohamad bin Suleiman and Lance Corporal Mohd Azmi proceeded to the right front door of the car while PW5 went to the left side of the front door. PW5 identified himself to the appellant by showing to the appellant his authority card.
[7] The car attempted to flee from the scene by reversing but was impeded as it crashed into the police car which was blocking it at the rear end. It was also the prosecution's case that the appellant attempted to flee by opening the driver's door but was prevented from so doing by PW6.
[8] PW5 entered the car from the front passenger door and switched off the car engine and forthwith seized the ignition key.
[9] On the lap of the appellant, PW5 found a white plastic bag (P9). This testimony was confirmed by PW6.
[10] Inside P9 was a paper box containing five translucent plastic packets containing yellowish granular and powdery substance, which, upon analysis by the Government Chemist, PW9, Abdullah bin Mohd Yusof, confirmed that the substance contained 70.20 grams of heroin and 195.41 grams of monoacetylmorphines the subject matter of this charge. Learned counsel for the appellant did not even cross-examine let alone challenge the testimony of PW9.
[11] With regard to the car, PW3, Ng Kim Meng and PW4, Ng Zeng Sheng testified that the appellant rented it from their hire car company, Syarikat Daite Transport, at about 1.15pm on 2 May 2002, the day of the incident.
The Case For The Defence
[12] At the end of the prosecution's case, the learned High Court Judge found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellant and called upon the appellant to enter his defence.
[13] The appellant elected to give evidence on oath and was the sole witness for the defence. In his defence, the appellant adduced, inter alia, the following:
(a) He was 43 years old and a car re-possessor and he did not own any car but as and when the need arose he would either borrow his brother-in-law's motorcycle or rent a car to move around.
(b) He had a lady friend known as 'Noi' whom he met at a bar in Bandar Permas Jaya. 'Noi' stayed at Tam
