Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 112 CPC Statements Should Not Be Given to Defence Counsel
Right to Access Witness Statements - Under Section 112 CPC, police statements of witnesses are recorded during investigations and can be relevant for the defence if material and assist in the case. However, the admissibility and use of these statements are subject to legal restrictions. For instance, in some cases, courts have disallowed the use of Section 112 statements based on specific provisions like Section 113 CPC, which restricts the use of police statements in evidence unless exceptions apply. VASANTA AMARASEKERA vs PP - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur, LIEW KET BOH & ANOR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
Restrictions and Legal Provisions - Section 113 CPC generally prohibits the use of police-recorded statements (including those under Section 112) as evidence in court, unless certain conditions are met. Courts have upheld that statements made under Section 112 are not automatically admissible and require compliance with legal safeguards, such as informing the accused of their rights under Sections 112(4) and 112(3). The courts have also emphasized that police statements are not to be handed over to the defence arbitrarily, especially if their admissibility is contested. LIEW KET BOH & ANOR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya, MOHD ZAHARANI HARUN vs PP - High Court Malaya Ipoh, PP vs EZAM ABU HASAN - High Court Malaya Shah Alam
Material Contradictions and Reliability - Courts have scrutinized contradictions in police statements (Section 112) to assess the credibility of witnesses and accused persons. Material contradictions, especially when false statements or contradictions are identified, can lead to discrediting the witness or accused, and courts have justified not relying on such statements in some cases. The accused's right to a fair trial and the prohibition against using police statements as evidence without proper adherence to legal procedures are central considerations. AHMAD RIZAL UMAR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya, AHMAD RIZAL UMAR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya, PP vs HEERA SINGH MOHAN SINGH - High Court Malaya Ipoh
Implication for Defence - The legal framework and case law indicate that statements recorded under Section 112 CPC are generally not to be given to the defence unless they are admissible under specific exceptions, such as when the accused has voluntarily made admissions under Section 113 or when the statements meet the criteria for admissibility. The courts have consistently held that these statements are primarily for investigation and not for disclosure to the defence, reinforcing the principle that such statements should not be used as a tool for defence preparation unless legally permitted. PP vs RENGADORAI PERUMAL & ORS - High Court Malaya Muar, PP vs EZAM ABU HASAN - High Court Malaya Shah Alam
Analysis and Conclusion
The overarching principle derived from the case law and statutory provisions is that Section 112 CPC statements are not to be given to the defence unless they are admissible under the law, notably under Section 113 CPC. Courts have emphasized safeguarding the accused's rights by restricting access to police statements to prevent undue influence or reliance on potentially inadmissible evidence. The legal restrictions aim to ensure a fair trial, preventing the use of police-recorded statements as evidence unless they meet strict admissibility criteria. Therefore, Section 112 CPC statements should generally not be disclosed to the defence unless they are properly admitted as evidence under the applicable legal provisions.
In criminal trials, the question of whether statements made to police under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) must not be made available to defence counsel often arises. This issue pits investigative privileges against the accused's right to a fair trial. Statements Made to Police Must Not be Made Available to Defence Counsel – is this an absolute rule? The legal landscape in Malaysia reveals a more nuanced position: these statements enjoy statutory privilege but are not categorically barred from disclosure when justice demands it. This blog post delves into the key principles, case law, and exceptions, providing clarity for legal professionals, defendants, and the public.
Note: This is general information based on Malaysian case law and statutes. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Section 112 CPC statements, recorded from witnesses under oath during police investigations, are generally not admissible as evidence against the accused in standard proceedings. However, they can be disclosed to the defence under certain circumstances, particularly when the interests of justice require it. Courts have emphasized that these statements are not absolutely privileged, balancing confidentiality (to prevent tampering) with fairness. SITI AISYAH vs PP - 2018 MarsdenLR 977PP vs WANIDA CHINNABUT - 2024 MarsdenLR 2627
The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have clarified: police statements under s 112 CPC are not absolutely privileged and can be disclosed under certain conditions. PP vs WANIDA CHINNABUT - 2024 MarsdenLR 2627
Here are the core points shaping this area of law:
These principles ensure trials remain equitable without compromising investigations.
Under Section 112 CPC, witnesses provide sworn statements to police, legally bound to tell the truth – falsehoods can lead to charges for false evidence (s 112(3)). PP vs WANIDA CHINNABUT - 2024 MarsdenLR 2627 These are investigative tools, not trial evidence by default. Courts uphold non-disclosure in normal proceedings: police statements recorded under s 112 must remain undisclosed except in limited circumstances. SITI AISYAH vs PP - 2018 MarsdenLR 977
From other cases, contradictions in such statements highlight reliability issues. For instance, the Appellant's Material Contradiction 2 Police Statements (Section 112 CPC) was made influenced judicial assessments of credibility. AHMAD RIZAL UMAR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya Similarly, omissions like unrecorded cautions in statements affect evidential weight. PP vs MUHAMMAD NG WAH LING - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
Malaysian courts have evolved the law through key decisions:
The Court reasoned that no specific statutes prevent disclosure, unlike privileged communications. Sections 113(2) and (3) even allow courts to order production, signaling conditional admissibility. PP vs WANIDA CHINNABUT - 2024 MarsdenLR 2627
Here, s 112 statements were disallowed as evidence under amended s 113 CPC, reinforcing use restrictions. PP vs EZAM ABU HASAN - 2022 MarsdenLR 1889
Courts mandate disclosure after prosecution evidence closes if fairness demands: a common law duty exists to disclose witness statements... especially when such disclosure is necessary for the fairness of the trial. CHRIS CHRISTIAN & ORS vs PP - 2019 MarsdenLR 137
Additional precedents underscore restrictions. Courts have disallowed arbitrary handover, noting s 113 prohibits use unless exceptions apply, such as voluntary admissions. VASANTA AMARASEKERA vs PP - High Court Malaya Kuala LumpurLIEW KET BOH & ANOR vs PP - Court of Appeal PutrajayaPP vs EZAM ABU HASAN - 2022 MarsdenLR 1889 Material contradictions in s 112 statements can discredit witnesses, but access is not routine. AHMAD RIZAL UMAR vs PP - Court of Appeal PutrajayaAHMAD RIZAL UMAR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
Disclosure is discretionary, based on:
Exceptions include:- Impeachment of witnesses.- Post-prosecution case preparation.- Court-ordered production under s 113(2).
Courts stress: statements are primarily for investigation and not for disclosure to the defence unless legally permitted. PP vs RENGADORAI PERUMAL & ORS - High Court Malaya MuarPP vs EZAM ABU HASAN - 2022 MarsdenLR 1889
Other sources affirm procedural safeguards. For example, failure to reflect key facts in s 112 statements impacts credibility: PW2 replied that he had orally informed PW5 but it was not reduced to writing in his statement. PP vs MUHAMMAD NG WAH LING - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
Defence teams cannot demand s 112 statements as a right but should argue necessity post-prosecution. Prosecutors must weigh fairness, especially where contradictions exist: in view of the false Appellant's Police Report and the Appellant's Material Contradiction 2 Police Statements (Section 112 CPC), the learned High Court Judge was fully justified. AHMAD RIZAL UMAR vs PP - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
This framework protects investigations while honouring Article 5(1) Federal Constitution fair trial rights.
Section 112 CPC statements should not be categorically withheld from defence; disclosure hinges on circumstances, relevance, and judicial discretion. They are privileged but discloseable in justice's interests, ensuring fair trials without routine access.
Key Takeaways:- Not automatically admissible or disclosable. SITI AISYAH vs PP - 2018 MarsdenLR 977- Common law supports post-prosecution access for fairness. CHRIS CHRISTIAN & ORS vs PP - 2019 MarsdenLR 137- No absolute privilege; exceptions via s 113. PP vs WANIDA CHINNABUT - 2024 MarsdenLR 2627- Balance prevents tampering while upholding rights.
Stay informed on evolving case law. For tailored advice, engage a criminal law specialist.
#Section112CPC, #CriminalLawMY, #FairTrialRights
(A) Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Section 112 – Right of the accused to access witness statements – The appeal concerns the request ... iv) Section 5 CPC is two-fold in that there must not be any statutory provision in the CPC or other law and also that the law in England must not be in conflict or inconsistent with the CPC. ... Section#HL_....
Admissibility Of Section 112 CPC Statements [55] The second issue argued by counsel for the appellant is that all the s 112 CPC statements, in particular the statement of Wilton and Jazrul, that was recorded by the predicate offence investigating officer cannot be used in a ... Counsel for the appellant submitted the s 32 AMLATFPUAA ....
Yet, the Appellant's Material Contradiction [2 Police Statements ( Section 112 CPC)] was made; (f) in view of the false Appellant's Police Report and the Appellant's Material Contradiction [2 Police Statements ( Section 112 CPC/ ... As such, the Appellant's averments regarding the Assailant could not be accepted - paras 49, 50 and 5....
Yet, the Appellant's Material Contradiction [2 Police Statements (Section 112 CPC)] was made; (f) in view of the false Appellant's Police Report and the Appellant's Material Contradiction [2 Police Statements (Section 112 CPC)], the learned High Court Judge was fully justified in ... Worse still, the Appellant had the temerity to make the false Appel....
Material Contradiction [2 Statements ( Section 112 Section 112 s 112 CPC , s 112(3) CPC )] was made; (f) in view of the false Appellant's Police Report and the Appellant's Material Contradiction [2 Police Statements ( Section 112 Section 112 a ....
Section 113 of the CPC provides that: ii) the father had earlier given contemporaneous and incriminating statements against his son on 15 August 2018 just three days after the raid; iii) he hired and paid for an experienced criminal lawyer to defend his son; iv) the defence wants the court to draw a doubt
(Paras 12, 75) ... ... (B) Criminal Procedure Code – Section 112 – Discrepancies in witness statements must be examined, but discrepancies ... It will be seen that the voluntariness test espoused in s 122(5) of the CPC for the police statements and s 24 of the Evidence Act for confessions made to non police officers, apply only to statements given by an accused person." [56] In the case....
" [72] There is no provision in s 112 CPC or the CPC itself which prohibits a witness from giving testimony if he or she has not given a 112 Statement. ... Evidence Of Witness Who Did Not Give A s 112 CPC Statement [70] Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ana (SP14) was a "fabricated" and "cooked up" wi....
[82] When cross-examined as to whether the fact that PW2 had administered the statutory caution under s 37B DDA was reflected in his statement given to the IO (PW5) under s 112 of the CPC, PW2 replied that he had orally informed PW5 but it was not reduced to writing in his statement. ... [100] On the facts of this case, we have the word of PW2 and PW5 that although not mentioned in the police report (Ex....
This Court, however is of the view that this is clearly prohibited by the amended s 113 CPC enforced in 2007. Section 113 provides as follows: Section 113. Admission of statements in evidence. ... [79] The 'statement' found in s 113(1) would include a verbal statement of the accused recorded under s 112 CPC which states as follows: Section 112. Examin....
Therefore, from the above, it can be inferred that Section 80 of CPC has no application to the facts of the present case, and no notice was required to be issued to the 2nd defendant under the said Section. Hence, the defence raised by the 1st defendant with respect to the notice under Section 80 CPC has no legal basis.
(v) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b) and Section 114A ibid. (vii) the bank guarantee, provisional duty bond and indemnity bond referred to in para 6 hereinabove, should not be enforced.” (iv) The imported Toyota Prado bearing registration No.MH-06-T-9950 having declared chassis No.KZJ95-0151130 and of ascertained value as given in Annexure “A” to thus notice should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act,....
No bank could accept it for encashment according to him in the given circumstances. The learned counsel has also referred to Order 37, Rule 3, sub-rule (5) of CPC, which according to him clearly indicated that leave to defend was not to refused unless Court was satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant could not be treated as "substantial defence" or the defence intended to be raised was frivolous or vexatious. The plea raised in terms of application which was filed....
7. So far as the issue that defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending in the Court at Punjab and therefore the trial of the present suit should not continue as per Section 10 CPC, it is noted that the defendant has not raised such issue/defence of Section 10 CPC framed when issues were framed on 30.1.2015. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/defendant also concedes that no defence/objection as per Section 10 CPC has been raised in the written statement fi....
7. So far as the issue that defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending in the Court at Punjab and therefore the trial of the present suit should not continue as per Section 10 CPC, it is noted that the defendant has not raised such issue/defence of Section 10 CPC framed when issues were framed on 30.1.2015. Clearly therefore application beyond the scope of written statement cannot be looked into. So far as properties in Punjab are concerned, as already stated above, if a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
