The investigating officer had investigated all these witnesses and submitted the single set of investigation papers to the Deputy Public Prosecutor who then decided not to charge them. In the circumstances the prosecution S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ cannot be heard to say that it did not know what evidence these witnesses would give because statements had been recorded from them. Necessary arrangements should have been made by the prosecution to make them available to defence during the proceedings in the High Court" -Penekanan ditambah [71] Begitu juga dalam kes Law Kian Ming v PP [2023] CLJU 597, Mahkamah Rayuan telah menegakkan prinsip undang-undang yang sama dengan merujuk kepada kes Rosli Bin Yusuf dalam membincangkan hak kepada satu perbicaraan yang adil (right to a fair trial) kepada tertuduh dan juga kes Asnawi Yusuf dan bersetuju bahawa pihak pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan saksi yang telah ditawarkan yang mana kegagalannya boleh melayakkan tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. [72] Sebelum itu, kedudukan yang sama telah diputuskan dalam kes Masoumeh Gholami Khaveh v. PP [2013] 5 CLJ 59 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan mengatakan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk menyediakan saksi yang ditawarkan telah menjejaskan hak tertuduh kepada satu perbicaraan yang adil (a fair trial had been compromised). [73] Bersandarkan nas kes duluan di atas, jika naratif kes pembelaan gagal dilengkapkan maka peluang untuk tertuduh memberikan penjelasan atau mengemukakan bukti sanggahan telah dinafikan. Benar atau sebaliknya, kukuh atau tidak keterangan bukti yang bakal dikemukakan tidak dapat diputuskan tanpa tertuduh diberikan peluang ini. [74] Sekali lagi saya merujuk kepada kes Rosli bin Yusuf di perenggan 46: “[46] Before parting, we consider it apposite to emphasise that a person's right to defend himself or herself against a criminal charge includes the right to obtain and adduce other evidence in support of his or her defence. It is desirable in S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ the interest of justice for the defence to obtain the fullest possible access to the facts relevant to the issue in the case. In this regard, the prosecution has a duty to make available to the defence witnesses who had been investigated by the police and from whom the statements have been recorded. This is, as we alluded to earlier, an important or vital corollary or element of an accused's right to a fair trial.” [75] Seperkara lagi, fakta bahawa pembelaan tertuduh telah dicadangkan kepada saksi diperingkat pendakwaan lagi, adalah undang-undang mantap (trite) bahawa pihak pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan saksi untuk menyangkal apa-apa pengataan yang boleh merisikokan satu pelepasan (risking dismissal of its case for want of proof – rujuk Aedy Osman v PP (2011) 1 CLJ 273). [76] Merujuk kepada kes PP v. Chia Leong Foo [2000] 4 CLJ 649, telah diputuskan oleh Hakim Augustine Paul seperti berikut: “As the prosecution has failed to negate the suggestions made by the defence in the course of its case it may still rebut the defence advanced by cross-examination of the accused and his witnesses and/or, if possible, by calling Yee Chin Koon as a witness or tendering his police statement in evidence by re-opening its case at the end of the case for the defence.” [77] Oleh yang demikian, berikutan dengan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi-saksi yang ditawarkan dengan alasan yang munasabah, tertuduh telah dinafikan haknya untuk mendapatkan satu perbicaraan yang adil. [78] Maka, tanpa melihat kepada samada tertuduh telah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah atau tidak, disebabkan naratif kes pembelaan tidak dapat dilengkapkan, saya berpendapat keadaan ini cukup untuk membolehkan tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ [79] Saya juga merujuk kepada kes Ti Chuee Hiang v PP [1955] 2 MLJ 433, dimana Mahkamah Agong telah memutuskan, antara lain: “While the prosecution has a complete discretion as to the choice of witnesses to be called at the trial, it also has the duty to call all necessary witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative of the prosecution case to establish proof against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. At the very least, the prosecutor should make them available for cross-examination by the defence. If the prosecution failed to fulfil this duty, the accused must be acquitted.” -Penekanan ditambah [80] Saya telah menilai dengan teliti kes pembelaan setakat mana yang telah dikemukakan dan kesimpulannya, saya berpendapat bahawa keterangan kes pembelaan boleh dikatakan ada kemungkinan benar kerana B4 wujud (bukan rekaan) dan berperanan dalam aktiviti kegiatan dadah. Maka, pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan satu keraguan dari kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan B4 kerana ada kemungkinan B4 akan memberikan keterangan menyokong naratif fakta yang diberikan oleh tertuduh. Faedah keraguan ini boleh diberikan kepada tertuduh. [81] Sehubungan dengan itu, walaupun tidak yakin, saya berpendapat keseluruhan kes pembelaan telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan dan seterusnya mematahkan anggapan dibawah s.37(da) atas imbangan kebarangkalian. [82] Sekadar untuk melengkapkan, saya merujuk kepada kes Thavanathan Balasubramaniam v PP (1997) 3 CLJ 150 dan merujuk kepada prinsip yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan seperti dibawah: S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ “it was for the accused to give an innocent explanation which the Court considered more likely than not that it was true, i.e. on a balance of probabilities, the test applied in civil proceedings. PP v. Yuvaraj [1969] 2 MLJ 89 PC.” [83] Juga merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Mohamad Yusof [2006] 5 MLJ 559, telah diputuskan bahawa: “[12] In the course of the defence stage, the accused person here had alleged that the bag which contained the drugs was owned by one Hassan, a friend who had hitched a ride from him that night. This person had managed to make good his escape during the confusion, leaving the accused person eventually stranded and being held responsible for the abandoned incriminating item. With the testimony of the accused person given under oath, his evidence thus merit serious consideration let alone at no stage of the hearing was he impeached. The pertinent question required to be resolved thus was, was it possible that the mysterious Hassan did probably exist, and not a mere scapegoat of a name alluded to by him as a passport to escape the charge? At this stage of the defence there was no legal demand that he must factually prove Hassan did exist. All he needed to do was to merely persuade the presiding judge of that probability. If he succeeded, then on a balance of probability those drugs could have been Hassan's, thus inexorably exonerating him.” [84] Saya berpendapat, dari keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan dalam pembelaan, ianya tidak boleh dikatakan bersifat penafian dan pemikiran terkemudian tetapi satu kemungkinan (probability) yang juga telah dicadangkan kepada saksi pendakwaan lagi. Kesimpulan [85] Tertuduh telah memberikan versi beliau iaitu kereta beliau telah dipinjam oleh B4 sehari sebelum hari tangkapan dan B4 sendiri mengatakan kepada tertuduh bahawa dia ada meninggalkan kotak berisi teh herba Cina di but kereta tertuduh. Hanya B4 boleh mengesahkan kebenaran versi ini, malangnya B4 tidak dapat dikemukakan. Fakta ini S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ menjadikan versi tertuduh ada kemungkinan (probability) benar walaupun tidak diyakini kebenarannya. [86] Saya merujuk kepada kes Ganapathy Renggasamy v PP (1998) 2 CLJ 1, yang menyebut: "It needs to be remembered that however weak a defence may be, trial judges being judges of both fact and law should not just brush aside the defence on the basis that the prosecution witnesses are to be believed and not the defence. Where the law casts the onus of giving an explanation upon an accused person, and the explanation is given, which is consistent with innocence, the court is duty bound to consider whether it might reasonably be true, although not convinced of its truth. On the issue of the court's duty to consider the defence, the age old decision in Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] MLJ 263 is still good law as it was then. This followed by the Supreme Court in Mohamad Radhi bin Yaakob v. PP [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 311; [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 3 MLJ 169". -Penekanan ditambah [87] Saya ulang, di peringkat pembelaan, hanya reasonable doubt perlu dikemukakan. Maksud reasonable doubt (rujuk kes PP v Saimin (1971) 1 LNS 115) adalah satu doubt which makes you hesitate as to the correctness, after you have fully investigated the evidence and compared it in all its part, you say to yourself I doubt if he is guilty. Keputusan [88] Maka, setelah menimbang fakta kes pembelaan dengan perspektif yang betul selaras dengan keterangan kes pendakwaan dan mempertimbangkan kegagalan pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi-saksi yang ditawarkan, ini adalah satu situasi di mana tertuduh telah dinafikan haknya untutk membentangkan fakta kes pembelaannya dengan lengkap maka keadaan ini telah menimbulkan keraguan (rujuk Mat v PP (1963) S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ JA-45A-74-11/2021 29 MLJ 263 - do not accept or believe the accused’s explaination but nevertheless it raises in my mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt). [89] Maka tertuduh dengan ini dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan ke atasnya. Bertarikh : 28 Mei 2024 (NOOR HAYATI BINTI HAJI MAT) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Johor Bahru Perwakilan:- Bagi pihak Pendakwaan: Puan Siti Norliza binti Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Aras 2, Bangunan Dato’ Jaafar Muhammad Kota Iskandar, Iskandar Puteri Johor. Bagi pihak Tertuduh: Dato N. Sivananthan Tetuan Sivananthan Suite No 1, L17-01, PJX Tower No 16A, Persiaran Barat 46050 Petaling Jaya Selangor S/N rvgnsqR7t02qhoiMOPjRnQ