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

2024 MarsdenLR 1529

MAGISTRATE COURT ALOR GAJAH
PP – Appellant
Versus
LAI KIM ON – Respondent
[Case No: MC-83-238-05/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Sharina Farhana ,Respondent Advocate: Asim Ng Mohd Jaafar Ng,Carlreen Ang

The prosecution must establish dangerous driving and causation of death; failure to do so results in acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 - Section 41(1) - Charge of dangerous driving causing death - Accused acquitted as prosecution failed to prove dangerous driving or causation of death. (Paras 40, 42, 62)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Prosecution must establish a prima facie case; gaps in evidence lead to reasonable doubt. (Paras 61, 63)

Facts of the case:
The accused was charged under s 41(1) of the RTA after a collision resulted in the death of the car driver. The prosecution's evidence was inconsistent and incomplete, leading to doubts about the accused's driving.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the charge, including dangerous driving and causation of death.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the accused drove dangerously and whether the deceased's death was directly caused by the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of dangerous driving, and the accused's actions did not meet the threshold for liability under s 41(1) of the RTA.

Result: Accused acquitted and discharged without calling for defense.

JUDGMENT

Teoh Shu Yee M:

Background

[1] The accused was charged for an offence punishable under s 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (" RTA "), which read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 19 September 2017 jam lebih kurang 6.45 pagi di KM 200.8 Lebuhraya PLUS arah selatan, di dalam daerah Alor Gajah, dalam negeri Melaka sebagai pemandu m/lori WPQ3470 telah memandu secara berbahaya kenderaan tersebut di atas jalan raya sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan dan kematian kepada Tiong King Ping No K/P: 771222-08-7195 dengan ini kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (pindaan 1999)."

[2] The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has called six witnesses as follows:

i. PW1: L/KPL Amirul Aizat, the officer prepared first information report for Police Post of Hospital Melaka;

ii. PW2: SM Nor Azli, the photographer;

iii. PW3: Ms Tiong Mee Chyn, sister of the deceased;

iv. PW4: Sjn(B) Othman, the assistant investigating officer;

v. PW5: Insp Mohd Marzooki, the investigating officer; and

vi. PW6: Dr Rhaathey Kishna, the pathologist.

Prosecution's Case

[3] The prosecution's case in substance is as follows. On 19 July 2017 at about 6.45 am, a road collision occurred involving a lorry bearing registration number WPQ 3470 and a Toyota car bearing registration number WUH 6582 at KM200.8 of the PLUS Highway (southbound) in the Alor Gajah district, Melaka.

[4] Acting on information about the accident, at 7.00 am, PW2 (the photographer) and PW4 (the assistant investigating officer) departed from the IPD Alor Gajah to the accident scene. Upon arrival at the accident scene, PW2 and PW4 observed that the weather was clear, the rain had stopped, and the road surface was almost dry.

[5] Both vehicles involved were still at the accident scene, positioned in the emergency lane (A-A1, as stated in the sketch plan P7). PW2 and PW4 saw that the car had overturned and was slightly slanted with the car's wheels facing upwards, while the lorry was positioned straight behind the car.

[6] The accident area was a straight three-lane road heading south (Exhibit P3 (1-13), the accident scene photographs referred). The collision marks were on lanes A to A2. Both vehicles were traveling in the same direction, from north to south.

[7] When PW2 and PW4 arrived at the accident scene, the driver of the car (WUH 6582) was not present because he had been taken by ambulance to the Emergency & Trauma Department, Hospital Melaka, for immediate treatment. Meanwhile, the lorry driver (the accused) suffered minor injuries.

[8] At the accident scene, PW4 instructed PW2 to take photographs of the accident (P3 (1-13)). PW4 also prepared the sketch plan of the accident scene (P7), showing the position of the deceased's car in the emergency lane A-A1 and the lorry also in the emergency lane A-A1. From P7, it appeared that the deceased's car positioned behind the lorry. However, the prosecution's evidence in chief testified that the lorry was behind the deceased's car. This part will be articulated and examined in the following.

[9] From the preliminary investigation by PW4 at the accident scene, he found that the lorry driver (the accused), who was moving in lane A1-A2 southbound, had lost control and collided with the deceased's car from behind, causing the deceased's car to be dragged into the emergency lane. The deceased was also traveling southbound.

[10] PW4 also noted drag marks in lane A-A1. The car (WUH 6582) was severely damaged at the rear, while the lorry (WPQ 3470) was severely damaged at the front. On the same day, the accused went to the Alor Gajah Traffic Police Station to lodge a police report about the road accident at KM200.8 of the PLUS Highway (southbound), stating that his lorry was involved in a collision with the car (WUH 6582). The police report (ID2) was lodged by the accused on the same day at about 3.54 pm.

[11] On 24 September 2017 at about 4.55 am, around 5 days after the acci


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