JUDGMENT

Mohd Azmi Kamaruddin SCJ:

[1] The appellant was convicted for possession of a fire-arm under s 57(1)(a) of the Internal Security Act 1960 and sentenced to death by the High Court at Johore Baharu.

[2] The charge was on the following terms:

That you on 10 April 1984 at about 5.10 am. in the vicinity of an unnumbered house in Kampong Maju Jaya, Pekan Nenas, in the District of Pontian, in the State of Johor, within a security area as proclaimed by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong (vide Proclamation PU (A) 148 of 1969 dated 15 May 1969), without lawful excuse, did have in your possession a fire-arm, to wit, a revolver Colt 0. 38 Special serial number 811073 without lawful authority and that you thereby committed an offence under s 57(1)(a) of the Internal Security Act 1960 and punishable under s 57 of the same Act.

[3] The case for the prosecution could be summarised as follows. At about 4.00 am. on 10 April 1984, a suspect by the name of Tajuddin bin Zainon (PW2) whilst in police custody, led a police party to Kampong Maju Jaya, Pekan Nenas, Pontian, to affect the arrest of four persons in connection with an armed robbery committed in the vicinity. At an unnumbered plank house, Tajuddin called out the name "Jaafar" and at the same time a Police Officer knocked on the plank wall. Suddenly a human figure jumped out of a window and ran out of the house. Police Constable Ismail (PW3) and DPC Zainuddin (now deceased) gave chase and were successful in arresting the fleeing figure, who was identified as the appellant. From the right hand of the appellant the police recovered the subject matter of the charge, a revolver (Ex. P3), loaded with five rounds of ammunition. In the course of Police investigations, the revolver was sent to the Chemistry Department to determine its servicibility. Test firing was conducted by Mr Cheong Meow Kioon (PW6) who testified in Court as an expert witness that the fire-arm was serviceable. At the close of case for the prosecution, Encik Yacob Atan, Counsel assigned as defence Counsel in the Court below indicated to the learned trial Judge that he did not wish to make any submission for an order of acquittal at that stage, as he conceded that there was a prima facie case to answer. His actual words were:

I concede there is a case and do not wish to submit.

[4] At Counsel's request, the trial was adjourned to the next day, and at the resumption of hearing the appellant was called to enter his defence. The appellant had no witness, but he elected to give evidence on oath. In his defence he testified that he was empty-handed at the relevant time of his arrest and therefore was not in a possession of the revolver as alleged in the charge. To support his story, he said he knew that a person named Salleh was almost all the time handling the revolver and as such the police could not possibly have found it in his right hand on the morning in question. After considering the defence, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty as charged and passed the mandatory death sentence.

[5] In his seven-page grounds of judgment the learned Judge was clearly of the opinion that the defence had not raised any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, and he concluded by stating:

After considering all the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence as a whole I found the Accused guilty as charged. I then convicted him and passed the mandatory death sentence.