Back
2018 MarsdenLR 3102
SESSIONS COURT (KUCHING)
AWANG KERISNADA, J
Public Prosecutor – Plaintiff
Versus
Joslin bin Savantil & 1 Other – Defendant
CASE NO KCH-61–4/8 OF 2017
Ahmad Fariz bin Abdul Hamid (Deputy Public Prosecuter, AG Chambers) for the prosecution.
Shankar Ram Asnani (Daniel Ling with him) (Thomas, Shankar Ram & Co) for the two accused.
Prosecution must establish a prima facie case in extortion charges; unreliable and contradictory evidence undermines criminal liability, leading to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 388 - Extortion - The two accused charged with extortion relating to the unlawful demand for money from the complainant under threat of an accusation of selling uncustomed goods - The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case leading to acquittal. (Paras 1, 27, 32)
(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt; here, the testimonies were found contradictory and unreliable, preventing a sufficient prima facie case from being established. (Paras 27, 32)
Facts of the case:
The accused allegedly extorted RM2,000 from the complainant under the pretense of being police officers, with complaints raised regarding the reliability of witness testimonies and investigation flaws.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented was inadequate to establish a clear case of extortion, with major inconsistencies in witness statements.
Issues: The court considered the reliability and credibility of witness testimonies and whether the prosecution had established a sufficient case for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution’s case was undermined by conflicting testimonies and the failure to conduct proper investigations into the allegations, necessitating acquittal.
Result: The accused are acquitted and discharged.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused charged with extortion. (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution must prove prima facie case. (Para 3) |
| 3. testimonies detail the incident and reactions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. alleged interference during trial. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. investigating officer's shortcomings noted. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. findings on evidence and prosecution's burden. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. definition of prima facie case. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
[1]The two accused Joslin bin Savantil and Muhamad Mustaqim in this case are charged for an offence of extortion under section 388Penal Code
“…..That you jointly with four other persons who are still at large, on the 3rd August 2017, at about 20.30 hours in front of a house at a groceries shop Lot 138 Taman Sri Harmoni Batu 8, Jalan Matang, in the district of Kuching, in the State of Sarawak, in furtherance of common intention of you all, committed extortion by putting one Chin Li Li (NRIC : 730202-13-5144 ) in fear of an accusation against her of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, to wit in possession of uncustomed goods and thereby dishonestly induced the said Chin Li Li to deliver to you cash money amounting to RM2,000/- and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 388Panel CodeSection 34
[2]The two accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges and hence a trial was conducted.
[3]In order to have the accused to enter his defence, the prosecution must prove and established a prima facie case against the accused. Here the accused is charged with the offence of extortion. Thus it is incumbent for the prosecution to prove that there was an extortion and nothing else. Therefore firstly the prosecution must prove that there are elements of extortions and attempt to commit it.
[4]I shall go immediately to weigh the testimony of the complainant in this case who is Chin Li Li ( PW 1 ) . In her testimony she said that on the 3rd August 2017 she was at her grocery shop at Lot 138 Taman Srti Harmoni Batu 8, Jalan Matang, Kuching. She said that On the 3rd 4 August 2017 at 8:30pm, 4 men came to her shop and they claimed to be CID ( police ) personnel from Badaruddin. PW 1 said these C.I.D personnel told her that they received a complaint from the public that she was selling unaccustomed cigarettes and in which they wanted to conduct a search. Then they asked her to produce the cigarettes and I did as requested by them.
[5]After producing those cigarettes PW 1 said the police personnel told her that these were illegal cigarettes and they asked PW 1 to follow them to the police station. However PW 1 did not go to the police station. She said that one of these men told her that his officer can help. PW 1 said she was busy so one of those men asked her cousin to talk to the particular officer who was said to be able to help in this matter. Her ( PW1 ) cousin in this case is Chin Kuet Pin.
[6]Her cousin then came out of the shop to discuss with these officers. Then later on her cousin entered the shop again and told her that they demanded RM4,000/-. She said she doesn’t have that much money and therefore she could only give RM2,000/-. She gave the money because she feared that the police officers would do something to her if she didn’t. She said that her cousin was the one who gave the cash to the policemen.
[7]It is interesting to note that PW 1 testified that she wasn’t sure whether those men were C.I.D personnel. Later on one of them showed her an authority card which PW 1 said to be a Photostat copy. PW 1 continued her testimony by mentioning that after the money was given the men left her shop and she was at the side of my shop and therefore she could see the plat number of the car. She described it as a Waja model car bearing registration number WAJ 9859 and with a silver colour.
[8]PW 1 was shown 11 photographs of the alleged incident and she identified them accordingly. She
