Back
1993 MarsdenLR 551
HIGH COURT (PENANG)
VINCENT NG, JC
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Plaintiff
Versus
LEE ENG KOOI – Defendant
CRIMINAL TRIAL NO 47-45-88
V Sithambaram and M Athimulam (Kumar, Sitham & Co) for the accused.
Kamardin bin Hashim and Ahmad Shahrir bin Mohd Salleh (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the public prosecutor.
The prosecution's inability to provide reliable evidence and the presence of significant inconsistencies led to the acquittal of the accused, asserting the importance of fair trial rights and witness credibility.
Headnote:(A) Internal Security Act 1960 - Section 57(1)(a) and (b) - Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) - Section 113 - Evidence Act 1950 - Police reports - The prosecution's failure to provide police investigation reports to the defense renders proceedings susceptible to inconsistencies in evidence. The original charges of possession were undermined by contradictions between police reports and witness testimonies. Clean discrepancies in testimony necessitated acquittal - 'No reliable and trustworthy evidence on which to convict accused.' (Paras 1-5)
(B) Evidence - The prosecution cannot rely on non-first information reports for corroboration. The boundary between statements made in police investigations and their admissibility has shifted post-amendment, emphasizing fair trial rights. (Paras 1, 5)
(C) Witness Credibility - When contradictions arise, the court holds a duty to scrutinize their testimony and cannot rely on evidence that contradicts itself. (Paras 3, 4)
(D) Conclusions on the prosecution's reliance on flawed testimony; the ethical obligations of the prosecution emphasized. (Paras 4, 5) (E) Ultimately, the principle that submits to the higher standard of justice led to the acquittal of the accused. (Para 5)
VINCENT NG JC
The accused was charged as follows:
First charge
That you on 6 October 1986 at about 6.50am at a house No 451-P, Jalan Pokok Cherry, Air Itam, in the District of Georgetown, in the State of Penang, within security area as proclaimed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong vide PU(A) 148 dated 15 May 1969, without lawful excuse did have in your possession firearms, to wit, one.38 Smith and Wesson special revolver bearing No (Yoke) 51327 mod 10-5, one.38 Smith and Wesson special revolver bearing No (Yoke) 67601 mod. 10-5, and one.38 Smith and Wesson special revolver bearing No 24152, without lawful authority, that you have thereby committed an offence under s 57 (1)(a) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Rev 1972) and punishable under s 57(1) of the same Act.
Second charge
That you on 6 October 1986 at about 6.50am at a house No 451-P, Jalan Pokok Cherry, Air Itam, in the District of Georgetown, in the State of Penang, within security area as proclaimed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong vide PU(A) 148 dated 15 May 1969, without lawful excuse did have in your possession ammunition, to wit 86 rounds of.38 inch special without lawful authority, and that you have thereby committed an offence under s 57(1)(b) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Rev 1972) and punishable under s 57(1) of the same Act.
At the opening speech of the learned deputy public prosecutor, Encik Kamardin bin Hashim (assisted by Encik Ahmad Shahrir bin Haji Mohd Salleh) stated that the prosecution would prove both the charges by direct and circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution called two material and principal witnesses, being ASP Sat Pal Jain s/o Churanji Lal (PW3) and Insp Tan Boon Hooi (PW9).
PW3 stated that on 6 October 1986 at 6.50am he led a police raiding party to raid a house No 451-P, Jalan Pokok Cherry, Air Itam, Pulau Pinang (hereinafter called ‘the said house’) together with 16 other police officers including PW9. He and the said members of the raiding party entered the compound of the said house through the front gate of the fence which was (until then) closed but not padlocked. When they entered the house compound PW3 saw, on the right at a distance of approximately 12-15ft away from him, a male Chinese (identified as the accused) walking towards him to the said front gate while at the same time holding a grey bag (identified as P4) in his right hand. As soon as the accused saw the police raiding party he tried to escape and PW3 and the other officers of the raiding party shouted, ‘Berhenti, polis! Polis,’ while they chased after the accused. PW3 together with three other raiding officers then apprehended the accused after some struggle which resulted in the singlet worn by the accused being torn, blood stained and divested from his person. The moment the accused was caught, P4 which he was then holding fell onto the floor and he was then immediately handcuffed.
P4 was then examined in front of the accused and when the bag was unzipped they found the following items:
(1) a glucose tin (P5) within which contained one yellow plastic bag (P5(A)) which held 39 live bullets of.38 special calibre (P5(B)).
(2) one dark blue coloured sock (P6) which held 15 live bullets of.38 special calibre (P6(C)).
(3) one grey coloured sock (P7(A)) which held 18 live bullets (P7(C)) of a.38 special calibre.
(4) one white coloured sock with blue stripes (P8(A)) which held 14 live bullets of a.38 special calibre (P8(C)).
(5) one blue coloured sock (P9(A)) which held one Smith & Wesson special revolver bearing serial No 51327 (P9(C)).
(6) one blue coloured sock (P10(A)) which held one Smith & Wesson special revolver bearing serial No 67601 (P10(C)).
(7) one white coloured sock (P11(A)) which held one Smith & Wesson special revolver bearing serial No 24152 on its butt (P11(C)).
(8) one pair of handcuffs of ‘Super-K’ brand (P14).
This witness also said, to quote: ‘Tiada lain-lain barang kes dijumpai dalam P4’. PW3 also found and arrested four females in the said house, who were the wife an
