A trial court must fully consider all evidence, including the defence's version, to ensure a fair trial; failing to do so may render a conviction unsafe.

[1] Prasit Punyang ("the appellant"), was charged and tried in the High Court at Kangar for trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 937.5 grams of cannabis, an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("DDA"), and punishable under s 39B(2) of the . The offence was said to have been committed on 19 May 2010 at about 6.30pm in a boat at Pelantar Ikan Kampung Tandiap, Kuala Perlis, in the District of Kangar, in the State of Perlis.

[2] The learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") at the conclusion of the trial convicted the appellant and sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty prescribed by the DDA. The appellant then appealed to this Court. We heard his appeal, wherein at its conclusion we unanimously allowed it. We now give the reasons of our decision.

[3] The facts of the case, which the learned JC held made out a prima facie case against the appellant, have been set out in his judgment. Very briefly, the facts adduced by the prosecution giving rise to the charge against the appellant were as follows. On 19 May 2010 at about 6.00pm, Inspector Zulpaka bin Aidiee ("PW5") and a police raiding team went to the Pelantar Ikan at Kampung Tandiap, Kuala Perlis to conduct an operation on drugs trafficking activities there. Earlier, the police had arrested one Yahya bin Zainol ("PW4") on suspicion that he was in possession of dangerous drugs. PW4 was then brought to the police station. According to PW4, at the police station he was asked to buy cannabis and he agreed. In this regard, the material part of the evidence of PW4 is as follows:

"Di cawangan narkotik anggota narkotik telah buat pemeriksaan terhadap isteri saya dan telah jumpa sejenis ganja. Saya mengaku itu adalah milik saya, tapi anggota narkotik tidak mahu tahan saya tetapi mahu tahan isteri saya. Polis kemudian minta saya beli barang ganja. Saya setuju.

Saya kemudian telefon ke Thailand. Saya berhubung dengan Mail. Saya beritahu saya mahu beli ganja sekilo.

Mail suruh saya telefon balik.

Pada hari itu pukul 4.00 petang saya telefon balik Mail. Mail suruh saya tunggu di Kuala Perils untuk ambil barang.

Harga satu kilo telah ditetapkan. Saya tidak ingat. Jumlah dalam RM20.00 lebih."

[4] As the facts unfolded, according to PW5, after about 15 minutes keeping watch, he saw a boat approaching the platform. No one else was in the boat at that point of time except the appellant. The boat then stopped at the platform. When the appellant was about to tie the boat at the platform, PW5 and his team rushed to the boat. PW5 then introduced himself as police and detained the appellant. According to PW5, he conducted body search on the appellant and found a slab of dried plant material wrapped in a transparent plastic packet from a bag worn at the waist of the appellant. PW5 suspected the dried plant material to be cannabis and he seized it. PW5 then asked the appellant whether he had in possession of any other drugs. Continuing with his evidence, this is what PW5 said:

"Selepas jumpai barang tersebut saya tanya kepada lelaki tersebut. Saya tahan lelaki tersebut dan rampas barang tersebut.

Saya ada bercakap dengan lelaki tersebut. Hasil perbicaraan (sic) saya jumpai satu plastik berwarna kuning bertulisan Thailand bahagian belakang bot tersebut. Di dalamnya terdapat satu bungkusan plastik berwarna hitam mengandungi ketulan mampat daun-daun kering disyaki dadah berbahaya dibalut dengan plastik lutsinar dan aluminium fosil.

P15C, D & E dirujuk dan dicamkan.

Saya tanya lelaki tersebut kiranya dia ada simpan apa-apa dadah lain. Lelaki tersebut jawab ya dan terus tunjuk bahan ganja belakang bot tersebut. Selepas itu dia bawa saya ke belakang bot dan dia sendiri ambil bungkusan pl