The prosecution must establish a prima facie case for affray, including proof of a fight between two or more persons in a public place, which was not demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT

Qasiratul Jannah Usmani Othman M:

A. Introduction

[1] These are my grounds of judgment in respect of an order of acquittal and discharge granted to all the accused persons for the offence of affray punishable under s 160 of the Penal Code .

[2] Below are my reasons for ordering such an order.

B. Background Facts

Charge

[3] On 28 June 2021, all the accused persons were charged under s 160 of the Penal Code as follows:

Pertuduhan

Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Mac 2021 jam lebih kurang 3.15 petang bertempat di No 120 Kuala Terla, Kg Raja di dalam daerah Cameron Highlands di dalam Negeri Pahang didapati telah memecah keamanan dengan cara melakukan gaduh gempar. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah s 160 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama.

Hukuman:

Penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai enam bulan atau dengan denda yang boleh sampai seribu ringgit atau kedua-duanya sekali.

List Of Witnesses

[4] To prove their case, the prosecution had called 10 witnesses as follows:

List Of Exhibits

[5] The prosecution had also tendered 21 Exhibits to support their case:

C. The Prosecution Case

[6] The First Accused is the son of the Second Accused, and the Third Accused is the son of the Fourth Accused. All the accused persons are neighbours.

[7] It is important to note that during the trial, it was discovered that the ownership of the said house or land is still in dispute among all the accused persons and the matter is still pending disposal at the Ipoh High Court .

[8] The Prosecution case can be summarised from the testimonies of all the Prosecution Witnesses and Exhibits tendered in Court .

[9] PW2, who was in the immediate vicinity of the incident, testified that on the 10 of March 2021 at around 3:15 pm, he was performing some construction works for the First and Second Accused at their house located at No 120 Kuala Terla, 39010, Cameron Highlands.

[10] PW2 testified that he was a contractor hired by the First and Second Accused to build a boundary wall between their house and that of the Third and Fourth Accused.

[11] While he was carrying out the construction works, the Third and Fourth Accused had instructed him to stop the works. He then called the First Accused and requested the First Accused to return to his house and resolve the issue with the Third and Fourth Accused.

[12] When the First Accused person arrived at his house, he and the Second Accused discussed the issue with the Third and Fourth Accused. Unfortunately, the discussion led to an argument between them and finally caused a physical altercation.

[13] According to PW2, the fight began at the boundary wall that he was told to construct and then moved to the neighbouring house belonging to PW6.

[14] PW6 was having lunch in his house when the fight occurred outside of his house. Upon hearing the quarrel, he immediately rushed out to intervene but failed. PW2 also attempted to intervene but was not able to stop the fight.

[15] According to the testimonies of PW2 and PW6, the altercation continued outside PW6's house and concluded when both the First and Third Accused tumbled into the riverbank.

[16] After the incident, all the accused persons had lodged police reports as per Exhibits P15 and P16.

[17] Exhibits P15 and P16 were then withdrawn on 10 and 11 March 2021 by the First and Third Accused through Exhibits P17, P18 and P19.

[18] However, on 16 March 2021, the First Accused lodged a Police Report at Exhibit P20 and requested the matter to be further investigated.

[19] The First Accused lodged Exhibit P20 in response to a civil suit filed at Ipoh High Court by the Third Accused against the First Accused. In the suit, the Third Accused claimed that the First Accused, his mother, PW2, and PW2's workers had assaulted the Third and Fourth Accused on 10 March 2021.

D. Court 's Duty At The End Of The Prosecution Case

[20] It is imperative at this juncture for the Court to reflect and remind itself of its statutory dutie