THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA

FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

[CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: WA-45B-7-05/2023]

BETWEEN

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AND

ACCUSED

EKO KASWADI

(Passport No. B5045875)

JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] The Accused, Eko Kaswadi, stood charged before this Court under Section 302 of the Penal Code (Act 574) for the murder of one Nasir bin Ramli. The preferred charge against him, in its original form reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 15/6/2022 di antara jam 8.56 malam hingga 16/06/2022 jam 2.23 pagi di A3-T05-U05, Blok A3, Tingkat 5. Perumahan Penjawat Awam Fasa 1C, Presint 16, di dalam daerah Putrajaya, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya telah membunuh Nasir bin Ramli (No KP: 820215-02-5525) dan dengan itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan "

[2] At the close of the Prosecution's case, after subjecting the adduced evidence to a maximum evaluation, this Court found that the Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the Accused. Consequently, the Accused was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called. Herein lie the grounds for the said decision.

Legal Standard at the Close of the Prosecution's Case

[3] The legal standard applicable at the close of the Prosecution's case is well settled. Pursuant to the governing principles articulated by the Federal Court in Balachandran v. PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301 (reaffirmed in PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 393), the trial court is statutorily mandated under Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) to subject the evidence adduced by the Prosecution to a maximum evaluation.

[4] A prima facie case is made out only if the Prosecution has adduced sufficient credible evidence which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence discloses fundamental gaps, irreconcilable doubts, or competing hypotheses consistent with innocence, the Court must not call upon the Accused to enter his defence merely to bridge those evidentiary deficiencies (Section 180(1), (3), and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC/Act 593) ).

Summary of Evidence and Evaluation of Findings

[5] The Prosecution's case rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence. As enunciated in Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 917 (adopted by the Federal Court in Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805; see also Idris v. PP [1960] MLJ 296; Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1982] 2 MLJ 306), where a conviction is sought purely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be cogently and firmly established, of a definite tendency pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, and, taken cumulatively, must form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

[6] Upon conducting a maximum evaluation of the totality of the evidence, this Court finds the circumstantial chain to be irreparably broken across several critical limbs:

A. Fatal Discrepancy in the Timeline of Death

[7] The charge alleges that the murder was committed between 8.56 PM on June 15th, 2022, and 2.23 AM on June 16th, 2022. To anchor this timeframe, the Prosecution relied on the testimony of an ehailing (Grab) driver (SP5) to place the Accused near the deceased's apartment block on the evening of June 15th, 2022.

[8] However, the uncontradicted expert medical testimony of the Pathologist (SP7), supported by her post-mortem report (P11), placed the estimated time of death between June 17th and June 18th 2022, some 24 to 48 hours after the Accused was purportedly present. Even if the Court accepts that the Accused visited the apartment on the night of June 15th, the forensic medical findings establish that the deceased remained alive for up to two days after the Accused's alleged visit. This irreconcilable temporal divergence shatters the Prosecution's timeline and leaves an expansive, unaccounted-for window during which third parties had access to the deceased.

B. Forensic E