Back
2014 MarsdenLR 1618
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PP – Appellant
Versus
BAYATI HEIDER – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: 45A-24-2010]
The prosecution must prove a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt, adhering to statutory requirements regarding evidence gathering, or risk acquittal if inconsistencies or lack of corroboration arise.
Headnote:(A) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a) and 39B(2) - Failure to prove a prima facie case of drug trafficking due to lack of corroborative evidence and non-compliance with statutory requirements in the excretion seizure process - Non-presentation of documentary proof and inconsistencies in oral testimonies diminished the prosecution's credibility. (Paras 7, 12, 17, 28)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 180(1) - Evaluation of evidence - The court must determine if there is a prima facie case against the accused based on evidence presented, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal standards. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with drug trafficking after being found with 393 grams of methamphetamine, following an excretion process while detained at a hospital. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case due to inconsistencies, lack of documentation, and unreliable testimonies leading to doubts about the identity of the excreted substances. (Paras 30)
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of oral evidence, compliance with statutory requirements during the evidence collection process, and the necessity of documentary proof to support drug identity. (Paras 7, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of complying with statutory requirements during evidence collection and established that the failure to produce consistent and reliable evidence resulted in the prosecution's inability to establish a prima facie case against the accused. (Paras 30)
Result: The accused was discharged and acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges against the accused. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the arrest and evidence collection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evaluating prima facie case requirement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. failure to comply with statutory requirements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. inconsistencies in oral evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. importance of evidence identity in drug cases. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. prosecution failed to establish a case. (Para 30) |
The Charge
[1] The accused in this case was charged as follows:
"That you on 3 October 2009 till 6 October 2009 at the toilet in Ward 7C, Hospital Serdang in the District of Sepang, in the state of Selangor, did traffic in a dangerous drugs, to wit 393 grams of methamphetamine; and thereby committed an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act."
The Facts
[2] The evidence led by the prosecution showed that the accused together with two others was detained at KLIA by SP5 (ASP Ahmad Nor a/l Nai) and his team. On a full body search and baggage check nothing incriminating was found. However the refusal by the accused and the two other suspects to drink when invited by SP5 and his men aroused their suspicion. The suspicion was compounded by the fact that the accused and the other two suspects sat upright throughout the one hour they were in the examination room.
[3] This suspicion prompted SP5 to bring the accused to the Serdang Hospital to be x-rayed. The suspicion of SP5 was well founded when the x-ray taken showed foreign objects in the intestine of the accused. On the advice of the doctor the accused and the other two suspects were detained at wad 7C of the hospital.
[4] The ward was guarded by a chief sentry together with a few other sentries on a rotation basis. The duty of the chief sentry was to inform SP5 the moment the accused excreted any substance when passing motion. The accused in this case excreted six times within a period of three days a total of 67 capsules. A total of three chief sentries were on duty (SP1, SP3 and SP4) when the accused excreted the capsules.
[5] SP5 marked the six plastic bags and each of the capsules and kept them in his steel cabinet. After the final day of discharge by the accused and the two other suspects, SP5 handed all the packets containing the capsule to the investigating officer Insp Mohd Firdaus bin Ali (SP6).
[6] As part of his investigation SP6 sent all the capsules to the chemist Suhana bt Ismail (SP2) at the Chemistry Department Petaling Jaya. On analysis of the contents SP2 confirmed the substance in the capsule was dangerous drug methamphetamine to the weight of 393 grams.
Decision At The End Of The Prosecution's Case
1. Burden Of Proof
[7] It is incumbent upon the court at the end of the prosecution's case to evaluate the evidence led by the prosecution to determine whether the prosecution has proven a prima facie case. This is enjoined in the statutory provision contained in s 180(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that:
When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.
[8] The extent to which the court needs to evaluate the prosecution's evidence has been canvassed in various courts including the apex court many times. For my purpose I find the decision in PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar , illuminating where it is stated as follows:
"The close of the prosecution's case subject to the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution's witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. If the evidence admits two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused."
[9] What amounts to 'prima facie' proof has been succinctly stated in the case of Balachandran v. PP , as foll
