JUDGMENT

Zaleha Mohd Yusuf Pan JC:

A. Introduction

[1] The Appellant, Nego Anak Ahaw, was charged with an offence of voluntary causing grievous hurt to his biological son using a machete, an offence punishable under s 326 of the Penal Code ("PC") read together with s 326A of the Code.

[2] The Appellant pleaded guilty to the offence as charged at the Sessions Court on 3 April 2024. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment from his date of arrest on 26 March 2024.

[3] Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant filed an appeal to this Court on 12 April 2024 ("the Appeal"). On 18 March 2025, this Court declined to invoke its revisionary powers under s 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC"), dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court Judge.

[4] The Appellant subsequently lodged a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on 12 April 2024. The following sets out this Court 's full grounds of decision.

B. Appeal & Revision

[5] The grounds of appeal against the sentence imposed are set out in the Petitions of Appeal contained in the Record of Appeal and Supplementary Record of Appeal.

[6] Additionally, in his written submission, learned counsel for the appellant invited this Court to exercise its revisionary power under s 325 CPC.

[7] This Court will first deal with the invitation to exercise this Court 's revisionary power followed by the grounds of appeal as to the sentence of the appellant.

C. Invitation To Exercise Revisionary Power

[8] Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sentence was highly equivocal on the basis that the learned trial judge failed to consider that the prosecution's evidence was lacking to support the charge against the appellant, namely:

(i) The machete referred to in the seizure list (exh P3) was neither produced in Court nor tendered as an exhibit; and

(ii) No evidence was adduced in respect of any fingerprint examination of the weapon allegedly used.

Legal Principles

[9] First, on the legal principles as to the issue of non-production of the weapon, ie the machete, His Lordship Mohd Hishamudin Yunus JCA (as His Lordship was then) in a separate judgment of the Court of Appeal in Mahadzir Yusof & Anor v. PP; [2011] 1 MLJ 297; [2013] 9 CLJ 287 held that the non-recovery of the murder weapon does not, by itself, render the prosecution's case weak if there is strong supporting evidence. In the case before His Lordship, even though the wooden baseball bat used in the offence was not found, the accused admitted its presence, and the evidence clearly showed it was the cause of deceased's death (see para [215] of the judgment).

[10] In Poovaneswaran Sellan & Anor v. PP; [2016] 10 CLJ 508, the High Court reaffirmed that the non-recovery or non-production of the weapon used in the commission of an offence under s 326 of the PC does not, in itself, weaken the prosecution's case. It was held that it would be contrary to the interest of justice to require the physical production of the weapon as offenders may conceal or destroy such evidence.

[11] His Lordship Wong Teck Meng JC, citing PP v. Fong Yee Chun and the Federal Court case of Sunny Ang v. PP; [1966] 2 MLJ 195, held that circumstantial and expert evidence may suffice to prove the use of a weapon and the infliction of grievous hurt.

[12] Second, on the legal principles concerning the non-lifting of fingerprints for analysis, the Federal Court in PP v. Mansor Md Rashid & Anor; [1996] 3 MLJ 560; [1997] 1 CLJ 233 held that fingerprint evidence is crucial when the identity of the accused is in issue. However, in the case before the Court , which involved drug trafficking through a sale, the identities of the offenders and the transaction were already established by other evidence, the fingerprint evidence on the packaging assumed little significance.

[13] In Mahendran Arivalan v. PP, His Lordship Nordin Hassan JCA (as His Lordship was then) explained that forensic evidence includin