The court affirmed that a credible witness can suffice for conviction in drug trafficking cases, emphasizing the importance of the trial judge's evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.

[1] The appellant was charged with three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act") and punishable under s 39B(2) of the Act. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 10 September 2004 at house No SBB-49, Sungai Balang Besar, Muar. The dangerous drugs involved were (i) 6,517 grammes of cannabis, (ii) 137.88 grammes of heroin and (iii) 139.38 grammes of monoacetylmorphines.

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

[3] 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

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

[5] 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.

[6] PW5 then administered the statutory caution under s 37A of the Act to the appellant and thereafter reduced the said information into writeing on a piece of paper tendered as exh P17 pursuant to s 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 . According to PW5, the appellant had also affixed his signature twice on P17.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] Mohamad Yazid bin Ibrahim (PW6), the government chemist, testified that the exhibits were dangerous drugs within the definition of s 2 of the Act.

Defence Case

[12] 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) exhibit 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 bas