Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 6062

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
ZAINUN ALI, FCJJ, ARIFIN ZAKARIA, CJ, ZULKEFLI, CJ, ABDULL HAMID EMBONG, J
Md Zainudin bin Raujan – Appellant
Versus
Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 05–220 OF 2011(J)

Advocates:
Hisyam Teh Poh Teik (Teh Poh Teik & Co) for the appellant.
Nurulhuda Nur’ Aini bt Mohamad Nor (Deputy Public Prosecutor, Attorney General’s Chambers) for the respondent.

The court affirmed the trial judge's credibility assessment of the police witness, ruling that the accused's denial did not raise reasonable doubt regarding drug trafficking culpability.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure — Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Sections 39B(1)(a), 27; Evidence Act 1950 - Section 134 - Appeal against conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs resulting in death penalty - Admission of drug possession by the accused was recorded, claimed to be prejudicial due to violation of Evidence Act - Court found evidence by the police credible, ruling that appellant's version was a mere denial and did not cast a reasonable doubt. (Paras 38-62)

(B) Credibility of witnesses - Assessing credibility is primarily for the trial judge who had audio-visual advantage - Appellate courts should be slow to interfere unless there are compelling reasons. (Paras 38-39)

(C) Admissibility of evidence - No requirement for corroboration of police witness testimony under law as per Section 134. (Para 55)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952; he admitted to possessing drugs hidden in an orchard, leading to his conviction and subsequent sentencing to death.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s conviction and sentence, concluding that no compelling reason existed for overturning the findings of fact regarding credibility.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the admissibility of the accused's cautioned statement and the credibility of police testimony versus the defense's allegations of assault.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the learned trial judge had assessed the evidence fairly, with credibility of witnesses lying within his discretion. The evidence against the appellant was sufficient to uphold the convictions, with no grounds for appeal found.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the standard for admitting or excluding a section 27 Information from the Evidence Act 1950 and its effect on fairness of trial?

What is the proper approach to assessing the credibility of a single police witness under s 134 Evidence Act 1950 in a trafficking case?

What are the limits on appellate interference with a trial court’s findings on witness credibility and factual determinations in drug trafficking cases under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952?

Hasan Lah FCJ

(delivering judgment of the court):

INTRODUCTION

The appellant was charged with three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘the Act’)s 39B(2)

At the end of the trial the appellant was convicted on all the three charges and sentenced to death.

The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said convictions by the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present appeal to this court.

BACKGROUND FACTS

At the close of the case for the prosecution, the narrative of the trial judge’s finding of facts may be unfolded as follows.

Acting on information DSP Teng Chan Chew (‘PW5’) and his party raided a house at No 503, Jalan Parit Jalil, Tongkang Pechah, Batu Pahat and arrested the appellant who was then brought back to Balai Polis Tongkang Pechah. In the course of interrogation the appellant admitted to PW5 that he had kept drugs in the ‘kawasan kebun’ (orchard) behind his father’s house at No SBB 49, Sungai Balang Besar, Muar.

PW5 then administered the statutory caution under s 37Athe appellant and thereafter reduced the said information into writing on a piece of paper tendered as exh P17 pursuant to s 27Evidence Act 1950

PW5 and his men together with the appellant then proceeded to the address given in P17. Chief Inspector Ramesh and S/Major Ahmad Rosli conducted a search in the house. Nothing incriminating was found.

The appellant then led PW5 and his men to the orchard behind the house. According to PW5, the appellant pointed to an old cupboard. On the instruction of PW5, S/Major Ahmad Rosli searched the drawer and recovered two transparent plastic packets containing substances suspected to be heroin. In the two packets there were a total of 14 smaller packets containing substances suspected to be heroin.

In the orchard the appellant pointed to four different spots which were actually mounds of fallen coconut trees. The drugs (besides the one found in the old cupboard) which were the subject matter of the charges against the appellant were recovered from the four different spots pointed out by the appellant.

PW5 also arrested seven other persons where three of them were arrested at the said house, namely the appellant’s parents and PW8, who came for a massage from the appellant’s father. Four other witnesses, namely PW9, PW10, PW11 and Aetlas bin Abd Kamar were arrested at a motorcycle workshop in front of the house. They were there to repair their motorcycles.

Mohamad Yazid bin Ibrahim (‘PW6’), the government chemist, testified that the exhibits were dangerous drugs within the definition of s 2

THE DEFENCE CASE

In his defence the appellant testified that:

(a)he was assaulted by the police in house No 503, Kampung Parit Jalil, Tongkang Pechah, Batu Pahat;

(b)he was arrested and brought back to Balai Polis Tongkang Pechah together with his wife (‘DW2’) and his two children;

(c)at the police station he was assaulted again;

(d)exh P17 was not signed by him at the police station but it was signed at his father’s house at SBB 49, Sungai Balang Besar, Muar;

(e)he did not inform PW5 that he kept the drugs at the orchard behind his father’s house;

(f)the police went to his father’s house based on the address in his identification card;

(g)upon arrival at Sungai Balang Besar, Muar he was brought to a mosque near his father’s house. He was brought to his father’s house about one hour later;

(h)he and seven other persons were brought to the orchard; and

(i)the police recovered the drugs from the old cupboard and the coconut mounds by themselves. He did not point to the various spots where the drugs were concealed.

DW2 (the appellant’s wife), in examination-in-chief, testified that her husband was assaulted by the police in their house at No 503, Jalan Parit Jalil, Tongkang Pechah. She was handcuffed and was brought to Balai Polis Tongkang Pechah together with her husband and children. At the police station her husband was brought into a room. She could hear her husband being assaulted by the police.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document