The accused must raise reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s evidence in drug-related offences, and failure to do so results in conviction.

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(AFTER THE DEFENCE CASE)

Introduction

The accused was charged for an offence under section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

On the 5.04.2017, after hearing the defence evidence/case, the Court found that the defence failed to raise any reasonable doubt upon the Prosecution’s case. The Prosecution has therefore proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court therefore find the accused person guilty as charged and duly convict him of the charge.

The accused has appealed against the decision of this Court on his conviction and the Prosecution cross appealed against the inadequacy of sentence. I will now give my reasons convicting and sentencing the accused person.

The Law on Duty of the Court at the Defence Case

At the defence case, I must remind myself of the guidelines set out in the case of Mohd Nazrul bin Shuhaimi v PP (2014) 1 LNS 1271 (CA), as follows:

[15]Pendekatan yang harus diambil oleh hakim bicara dalam keadaan di mana tertuduh diperintahkan membela diri oleh Mahkamah Rayuan telah dijelaskan di dalam beberapa kes.

[16]Di dalam kes Pendakwa Raya lwn. Sulaiman bin Saidin

“[27] Sebelum merumuskan isu atau isu-isu yang berbangkit dalam rayuan ini, kami mendapati perlu untuk mengulangi bahawa tertuduh telah dipanggil untuk membela diri setelah mahkamah ini, dalam rayuan terdahulu, mengetepikan keputusan hakim bicara di akhir kes pendakwaan. Sehubungan dengan itu, kami mendapati tiada keperluan bagi kami untuk menimbangkan semula isu-isu yang telah diputuskan oleh mahkamah ini terdahulu mengenai isu-isu yang telah dibangkitkan di akhir kes pendakwaan, kecuali jika terdapat keterangan-keterangan baru yang dibangkitkan oleh pihak pembelaan yang boleh menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan”

[17]Perkara yang sama dinyatakan di dalam kes Mohd Azrin bin Che Meh v. Pendakwa Raya

“[32] … sepertimana yang kami nyatakan sebentar tadi, panel Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan pada 3 Ogos 2008 bahawa terdapat kes prima facie terhadap perayu. Maka menjadi tanggungjawab perayu untuk menyangkal kes pendakwaan. Ini bermakna, perayu boleh disabitkan atas keterangan prima facie tersebut sekiranya perayu gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan.”.

[18]Apabila Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan Pendakwa Raya terhadap pembebasan dan pelepasan perayu dan mengarahkan perayu membela diri, Mahkamah Rayuan tentunya telah mendapati bahawa berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan termasuk keterangan SP6, terdapat kes prima facie terhadap perayu. Keterangan SP6, isu pisau dan isu kegagalan memanggil ahli kimia adalah berkait secara langsung dengan pembuktian kes prima facie di peringkat kes pendakwaan. Walaupun pisau tidak dikemukakan di Mahkamah dan ahli kimia tidak dipanggil, keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang tersebut menunjukkan bahawa isu-isu itu tidak menjejaskan kes pendakwaan.

[19]Mengikut kehendak peruntukan seksyen 182A(1)Kanun Acara JenayahPP v. Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor

[20]Maksud keraguan yang munasabah seperti yang dijelaskan di dalam kes PP v. Saimin & Ors

“The following definition of “reasonable doubt” is often quoted: “It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.” It has again been said that “‘reasonable doubt’ is the doubt which makes you hesitate as to the correctness of the conclusion which you reach. If under oaths and upon your consciences , after you have fully investigated the evidence and compared it in all its parts, you say to yourself I doubt if he is guilty, then it is a reasonable doubt. It is a doubt which settles in your judgment and finds a resting place there.” Or as sometimes said, it must be a doubt s