2026 MarsdenLR 2089

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD, J
ROSMAINI ABDUL RAOF – Appellant
Versus
PP & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: JA-42S-7-12-2024 & JA-42H-13-12-2024]

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is valid if the chain of evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion of guilt. Appellate courts will not interfere with a lower court’s valuation of witness credibility or discretionary refusal to recall witnesses unless exercised arbitrarily, vexatiously, or causing a miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Sections 325 and 326A - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 173(j)(iii), 178-183A, 425 - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 91 - Grievous hurt to spouse - Domestic violence - Circumstantial evidence - Admissibility of police reports and statutory declarations as contradictory evidence - Recall of witness - Appellate courts should be slow to disturb trial judge’s findings on credibility of witnesses having observed their demeanour - Discretion to recall witness under Section 425 is not mandatory and should be exercised sparingly where essential to a just decision of the case - Failure to cross-examine on crucial facts constitutes acceptance of witness testimony. (Paras 36, 101, 102, 104, 116)

(B) Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on circumstantial evidence is good in law if cumulative effect leads to an irresistible conclusion of guilt with no other reasonably possible explanation - Disbelief of defence does not justify conviction if reasonable doubt remains, but doubt must be reasonable and not speculative or imaginary. (Paras 63, 64, 87)

(C) Sentencing - Evaluation of sentence - Appellate court will not alter sentence unless it is manifestly inadequate, excessive, or based on error in principle - Public interest, deterrence, and gravity of offence remain paramount considerations in domestic violence cases. (Paras 197, 202, 203)

Facts of the case:
An accused was charged with causing grievous hurt to his spouse. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including admissions made by the accused and the victim’s critical condition upon discovery. During the defence stage, the accused sought to introduce new evidence through a previously examined witness, alleging the witness had provided false testimony. The trial court rejected the application, finding it to be a tactical maneuver. The accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, which both the accused and the prosecution appealed.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial judge’s findings, noting that the circumstantial evidence chain was complete and that the attempt to introduce new evidence through the recall of a witness was an abuse of process designed to delay proceedings. The sentence was held to be proportional to the gravity of the offense.

Issues: Whether the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility, excluding contradictory documentary evidence, refusing to recall a prosecution witness, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that trial judges have broad discretion to manage trial proceedings and assess credibility, which should not be disturbed absent substantial error. The recall of a witness is a discretionary power that must be essential to a just decision, not a tactical tool to fill gaps in the defence case.

Result: Appeals of both the accused and the prosecution dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed.