2025 MarsdenLR 3260
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA ALOR SETAR
PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. ZULASMADI IBRAHIM
[Perbicaraan Jenayah No: KA-45A-30-10/2020]
Petitioner Advocates:Noor Azrul Abdul Rahman,Mohd Rizal Fadzil ,Respondent Advocate: B Murthy
The court affirmed prima facie case established when prosecution proved possession and knowledge of drugs by the accused without reasonable doubt, leading to a conviction under drug trafficking laws.
Headnote:(A) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Perenggan 39B(1)(a) dan 39B(2) - Kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Kes prima facie dalam perbicaraan - Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan elemen pemilikan dan pengetahuan OKT ke atas dadah yang dirampas berjumlah 169,905.9 gram Cannabis - OKT secara bersendirian memandu kereta yang mengandungi bahan dadah - Niat bersama antara OKT dan individu lain untuk mengedarkan dadah telah terbukti melalui keterangan dan bukti circumstantial yang kuat. (Paras 4, 97, 120)
(B) Prinsip prima facie dalam undang-undang jenayah - Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa kes prima facie ditetapkan apabila keterangan menunjukkan bahawa sebarang pembelaan yang diberikan oleh OKT tidak dapat mewujudkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes Pendakwaan. (Paras 35, 56)
(C) Kaedah pembuktian pemilikan dalam kes dadah - Pemilikan tidak memerlukan bukti eksklusif tetapi harus menunjukkan kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas barang yang bercanggah. (Paras 41, 48)
(D) Pengedaran dadah dan kepentingan awam - Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa pengedaran dadah berbahaya mempunyai implikasi serius terhadap masyarakat dan oleh itu, perlu dihukum dengan setimpal. (Paras 118, 119) (E) Hujan penaikan dan keputusan hukuman - Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati setelah mengambil kira berat dadah dan kepentingan awam. (Paras 100, 120)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. elements of the drug charges (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 2. possession and knowledge of drugs (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 3. verification of prosecution’s evidence (Para 74 , 75) |
| 4. defense arguments presented (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 5. court’s evaluation of defense evidence (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
| 6. court's observations on the plausibility of defense (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 7. conclusion on defense credibility (Para 93 , 94 , 95 , 96) |
| 8. considerations for sentencing (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112) |
| 9. final judgment on sentencing (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119) |
The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. On the other hand if a
prima facie case has not been made out it means that there is no material evidence which can be believed in the sense as described earlier.
In order to make a finding either way the court must, at the close of the case for the prosecution, undertake a positive evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced so as to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established. As the trial is without a jury it is only with such a positive evaluation can the
court make a determination for the purpose of
s 180(2) and (3). Of course in a jury trial where the evaluation is hypothetical the question to be asked would be whether on the evidence as it stands the accused could (and not must) lawfully be convicted. That is so because a determination on facts is a matter for ultimate decision by the jury at the end of the trial. Since the
court, in ruling that a
prima facie case has been made out, must be satisfied that the evidence adduced can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal it follows that if it is not rebutted it must prevail. Thus if the accused elects to remain silent he must be convicted. The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a
prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no
prima facie case.". [penekanan ditambah]
Intipati Kesalahan
[37] Elemen-elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan adalah seperti berikut:
a) bahawa dadah jenis Cannabis adalah dadah berbahaya sebagaimana ditafsirkan dalam s 2 dan Jadual Pertama ADB 1952;
b) bahawa OKT mempunyai pemilikan iaitu jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut;
c) bahawa OKT dan penama Shamsuddin bin Din (yang telah meninggal dunia), telah dengan niat bersama mengedarkan dadah berbahaya tersebut.
Elemen (a): bahawa dadah jenis Cannabis adalah dadah berbahaya sebagaimana ditafsirkan dalam s 2 dan Jadual Pertama ADB 1952
[38] SP9 (ahli kimia) telah mengesahkan bahawa kesemua 12 kotak bertanda 'T1 - T12' yang beliau terima mengandungi keseluruhan 176 bongkah bahan tumbuhan mampat yang mana setelah dianalisis didapati adalah dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis dengan berat sebagaimana dalam pertuduhan.
[39] Pihak Pembelaan tidak mempertikaikan jenis mahupun berat dadah yang dirampas. Sehubungan itu, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan elemen ini.
Elemen (b): bahawa OKT mempunyai pemilikan iaitu jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut
[40] Dadah yang dirampas telah ditemui di dalam kereta Toyota Unser tersebut yang mana semasa ditahan, hanya OKT seorang sahaja yang berada di dalamnya. Berdasarkan keterangan Pengadu, daripada kali pertama b
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
