[32] The testimony of SP1 was sufficient in regard to the arrest. In the case of Mogan Raj Ravi & Anor v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 3 10 CLJ 240 it was held: “The testimony of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to establish any fact. The HCJ had expressly stated that PW2 was a credible witness. There was no evidence to impute any motive on PW2 to lie in court and implicate the appellants. The absence of the two policemen did not create any gap in the 15 prosecution's case because it was only corroborative. No adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution as there was no suppression or withholding of the evidence. (paras 21, 29, 30 & 32)”. [33] SP6 was called to explain why he made the amendments on P32 20 and he had sufficiently explained and identified the envelopes marked H1 and H2 by SP4. The exhibits were only handled by SP1 (arresting officer), SP4 (investigating officer) and SP5 who analysed the dried plants and determined that they were cannabis as defined in s. 2 of the DDA 1952. Therefore, this ground of appeal must fail. 25 [34] In respect of the Appellant’s ground of appeal that the prosecution did not explain why there was a gap of 5 hours from the time of arrest to the time when SP1 handed over the Appellant and exhibits to SP4, I also did not find any merit to this argument. SP1 and SP4 30 S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA had explained that the Appellant was injured during the incident and had to be taken for treatment at the hospital first. This ground too must fail. [35] The Appellant submitted that the SCJ should have given him the 5 benefit of doubt and acquit him because the Appellant was involved in an accident prior to his arrest where he had fallen and lost consciousness. The Appellant’s defence (if this can qualify as a defence) was that he did not know what happened during the 15 seconds when he lost consciousness and from where the drugs 10 came because he had never seen them before. It is apt to discuss the short video recordings here to determine whether the Appellan’s allegation was true. [36] The prosecution did not rely on these videos and disputed them. 15 However, SP1 agreed that the videos showed him (SP1 and his colleague) after the Appellant had fallen off his motorcycle. So, I will now reproduce the relevant parts of the cross-examination of SP1 in respect of the video contents (exhibit D33(A) – (G)). The sequence of events as shown in the 7 videos were as follows: 20 i. WA0008 (duration 22 seconds) – IDD20 ii. WA0002 (duration 13 seconds) – IDD22 iii. WA0003 (duration 16 seconds) – IDD23 iv. WA0007 (duration 17 seconds) – IDD24 v. WA0006 (duration 18 seconds) – IDD25 25 vi. WA0004 (duration 14 seconds) – IDD26 vii. WA0005 (duration 20 seconds) – IDD27 S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA [37] The videos were marked as defence exhibit collectively D33(A-G) which I assumed the order were as abovestated. Firstly, I refer to D33(A) i.e. the 22 seconds video. SP1 in cross-examination was challenged that the item at his partner’s foot was the box (P12). But SP1 denied the suggestion as follows (at page 38 of RRJ2): 5 S: Apa barang di kaki dekat kaki kiri Ikmal? J: Saya tidak pasti, saya rasa telefon lama dia, dia dah tak guna handphone itu, sebab handphone itu jatuh S: Telefon Ikmal ya? 10 J: Seingat sayalah. S: Setuju barang di kaki Ikmal adalah kotak berwarna coklat? J: Tidak setuju. … S: Saya tunjukkan ini (sambil tunjuk) setuju itu satu kotak warna coklat? 15 J: Saya tidak setuju. [38] I have scrutinised the video and found that the surrounding area was not so dark that one could not see anything because there were street lamps lighting the area. The quality of the video was not too 20 bad, but the video was shot from a much higher place than the ground level, and therefore the pictures were ‘small’. I found that SP1 was not lying when he disagreed the item at the other policeman’s foot was a box. The maker of the video had zoomed in the shot towards the end of the 22 seconds video and there was no 25 box seen at Ikmal’s foot. There appeared to be some debris, probably from the accident, which littered the ground and an item which looked like a water bottle near the Appellant’s foot. It could be seen that he was conscious and SP1 standing behind was checking on him and looked like SP1 was trying to make a phone call. 30 S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA [39] The defence disputed the prosecution version as being the truth because he was alleged to have hidden 9 gms of cannabis in his left socks but had in the motorcycle carrier more than 60 gms of cannabis which was just kept in a box and that the box was still there despite the alleged forceful impact of the accident. The following 5 excerpts from the Notes of Evidence have been reproduced below because SP1 was challenged by the defence that his version could not have been the truth: i. at page 32 of RRJ2 – 13 seconds video S: Apa yang sedang berlaku ketika ini? 10 J: Pada waktu ini, kita dah gari suspek, dan kita tengah hubungi ketua balai polis, kita maklum suspek ke balai untuk tindakan lanjut, barang kes pun saya simpan, sedang berurusan dengan ketua balai ketika maklumkan nak bawa dia ke balai. S: Ketika ini barang kes berada di mana? 15 J: Seingat saya masih berada di dalam bakul motosikal itu. S: Barang kes ada dua, itu? J: Satu saya simpan. S: Barang kes dadah yang jumpa di dalam stoking kamu simpan? J: Saya simpan. 20 S: Dimana? J: Saya tidak ingat S: Barang kes dadah dalam kotak? J: Seingat saya masih di bakul motosikal, dalam jagaan saya. S: Setuju, ketika ini Lans Koperal sedang memeriksa motosikal ini, motosikal 25 OKT? J: Setuju. S: Boleh sahkan, klip video ini seperti mana berlaku ketika kejadian, setuju? J: Setuju. 30 ii. at page 34 of RRJ2 – 16 seconds video S: Tengok video ini, ada anggota polis tengah checking dengan OKT, setuju? S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA J: Saya tidak setuju, kerana itu saya, saya tidak checking. S: Itu tengah buat apa kalau bukan checking? J: Saya tengah tunjukkan kepada rakan saya di mana barang dadah disimpan. S: Sila mainkan sekali lagi (dimainkan) ada anggota polis tengah usik tayar 5 belakang motosikal OKT, siapa nama anggota? J: Anggota MPV, nama tidak ingat. S: Setuju, anggota ini sedang buat pemeriksaan ke atas motosikal OKT ketika ini. J: Pemeriksaan kali kedua selepas saya buat pemeriksaan kali pertama. 10 S: Ada apa-apa barang dijumpa anggota MPV di motosikal OKT? J: Barang sama saya jumpai, di dalam kotak berwarna coklat. iii. at page 35 of RRJ2 – 17 seconds video S: Boleh bagitahu apa berlaku ketika itu seperti dalam video klip? 15 J: Pada waktu ini suspek telah saya bangunkan untuk diletak dalam kereta MPV, dan barang kes ada dalam jagaan sayalah. iv. at page 36 of RRJ2 – 14 seconds video S: Terangkan apa berlaku dalam klip video ini? J: Suspek berada dalam kereta, dan motosikal suspek telah dibawa oleh 20 anggota polis Balai Cheras. S: Motosikal suspek telah dibawa? J: Anggota Balai Polis Cheras, nama tidak ingat. S: Ketika ini barang kes di mana? J: Barang kes dalam simpanan saya. 25 S: Dalam klip video ini ada Lans Koperal? J: Ada. S: Yang mana, tunjukan? J: Yang sedang menaiki motosikal warna gold. S: Yang kiri sekali? 30 J: Ya, betul. S: Motosikal apa? J: Honda EX5 warna gold. S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA [40] From SP1’s answers above, I did not find that he was lying or being evasive. I found that his evidence was consistent throughout and the cross-examination had not discredited him at all. The only discrepancy was that SP1 said at first after finding the drugs in the stocking worn by the Appellant he had proceeded to mark the 5 exhibit. SP1 clarified that the marking was done in the balai and that the search list was also completed there and not at the crime scene. [41] In re-examination of SP1, he explained his answers. The following excerpts from page 41-42 were relevant: 10 S: PB tanya awak, dalam video kelihatan polis sedang usik tayar, kamu jawab anggota MPV, tapi nama tidak ingat, kemudian PB soal tentang cadangan anggota tersebut sedang buat pemeriksaan motosikal, kamu jawab pemeriksaan kali kedua atas motosikal, terangkan? J: Pada selalunya, dalam keadaan selepas kita tengok orang accident atau 15 kemalangan, kita berada dalam keadaan ingat-ingat lupa apa yang kita kena buat, pemeriksaan yang pertama selepas saya angkat motor, dan pemeriksaan yang kedua anggota MPV lakukan untuk mendapat kepastian bahawa motor itu adalah motor curi atau tidak, untuk dia tengok nombor chasis dan nombor pendaftaran adakah sama dengan nombor 20 pendaftaran. S: PB tanya anggota MPV ini adajumpa barang tak? Kamu jawab barang yang sama saya jumpa kotak di bakul, jelaskan? J: Selepas saya angkat motosikal itu saya nampak ada kotak warna coklat dalam bakul motosikal, saya dah tegakkan motor lepas itu saya perasan 25 ada kotak itu dan saya terus periksa OKT, sebab saya risau dia ada kecederaan serius, so pastikan dia tidak serius, kalau serius saya terus call ambulancelah. S: Jadi awak orang yang pertama jumpa kotak itu? 30 S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA [42] I refer to the following principle in the case of Dato Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232, which is still good law where the apex court held: “(7) the credibility of a witness is primarily a matter for the trial judge. The functions of an Appellate Court, when dealing with a question of fact in which 5 questions of credibility are involved are limited in their character and scope and in an appeal from a decision of a trial judge based on his opinion of the trustworthiness of witnesses whom he has seen, an Appellate Court must in order to reverse not merely entertain doubts whether the decision below is right but be convinced that it is wrong. In this case the learned trial judge 10 accepted the evidence of Atun, the prosecution witness, whom he found to be a consistent witness unshaken by very severe cross-examination and the Appeal Court could find no reason to interfere with his assessment.”. [Emphasis added] 15 [43] The SCJ made the following finding in regard to the video clips where he stated that “Namun setelah diteliti, rakaman tersebut bukanlah rakaman penuh yang lengkap dari mula kejadaian tangkapan dan sehingga ia berakhir. Rakaman tersebut juga terputus-putus dan terdapat gap di antra rakaman”. I have to agree 20 with the SCJ’s observations and I will comment about this later in the defence evidence analysis. But the videos, particularly the third one (16 seconds duration) showed SP1 bending down near the Appellant’s left foot and had taken something from there and placed in the helmet next to the Appellant. It corroborated SP1’s evidence 25 that there was a packet of drugs found in the Appellant’s left socks. There was nothing incredible about SP1’s evidence in that regard: Mohamed Alias v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 172. There was no box seen on the ground after the accident and SP1 was consistent in his testimony that the box was still in the motorcycle carrier despite the 30 crash. It could also be seen in the videos that the Appellant was S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA conscious. Pursuant thereto, I found that this ground of appeal also could not be sustained. [44] The duty of the courts after the defence had closed its case have been set out in the case of PP v. Mohd Radzi Bin Abu Bakar 5 [2005] 6 MLJ 393. The case discussed the principles in the case of Mat v PP [1963] 1 MLJ 263. The Federal Court also touched upon the credibility of witnesses and held: “In this connection, counsel for the appellant had referred to us the case of PP v Saimin & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 16 where Sharma J held that the falsity of 10 the defence does not relieve the prosecution from proving the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that whenever a criminal case is decided on the basis of the truth of the prosecution’s case as against the falsity of the defence story, a trial judge must in accordance with the principle laid down in Mat v PP [1963] 1 MLJ 263 go one step 15 further before convicting the accused by giving due consideration as to why the defence story, though could not be believed, did not raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Thus, even though a judge does not accept or believe the accused’s explanation, the accused must not be convicted until the court is satisfied for sufficient reason that such 20 explanation does not cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. To satisfy this test it is not so much the words used by the judge, but rather the actual application of the test to the facts of the case that matters. In this case, we found that the learned trial judge offered practically no reason why the defence, notwithstanding its falsity and unconvincing nature, had failed to 25 cast reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, other than to state by way of lip service the duty placed by the law on the defence to earn an acquittal.” [Emphasis added] 30 [45] I have scrutinised the grounds of judgment of the SCJ where he had discussed and analysed the evidence given by the Appellant, which was allegedly supported by the evidence of his friend, SD2. In summary, the SCJ did not believe the defence case as can be seen in his analysis in pages 84 to 116 of the grounds of judgment 35 (RRJ1). The Appellant gave evidence that the first time he saw the S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA contents of the box was when he was at the balai and SP1 showed it to him. The drugs in the socks was also allegedly shown there. [46] During his cross-examination, the Appellant was asked the following and he agreed: 5 S: Kemudian kena paksa pulak dadah itu kamu punya, …tak pernah ditimbulkan, setuju ke tidak? J: Setuju. S: Cerita kamu dipaksa baru timbul hari ini? 10 [47] The Appellant denied the drugs were his and alleged the police wanted to frame him but he could not say why they would do such a thing: PP v Shaaban Bin Abdul Rahman [1989] 2 MLJ 313. He stated that he did not make a police report because he was not 15 aware of his rights until he appointed a lawyer to represent him. The SCJ concluded that the defence was a bare denial. I noted in the 16 seconds video, there appeared to be on the right side of the Appellant on the ground, a motorcycle helmet which looked like it was in blue color. In the photographs of the motorcycle marked as 20 P16, the blue helmet was in fact on the Appellant’s motorcycle. The defence never challenged the presence of the helmet as shown in the photographs. However, this contradicted his evidence in cross-examination and I found that he lied on this issue, which had to a certain extent affected his credibility as a witness: 25 S: Kamu nyatakan kamu mengelak sebab tak ada helmet dan road tax, kamu rasa takut kena saman sampai macam itu sekali? J: Ya S: Saya cadangkan, sebenarnya, bukan sebab motor kamu tidak ada road tax atau sebab tak pakai helmet, tetapi kamu cuba patah balik sebab dalam 30 S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA bakul kamu ada kotak yang kandungi dadah dan kaki kamu ada ganja, sebab itu kamu patah balik dan berlanggar, setuju? J: Tidak Setuju. [48] I go now to SD2’e evidence. This witness claimed that he had shot 5 the videos when he heard some commotion from downstairs involving the police and a member of the public. At that time, he did not know that his friend, the Appellant, was the said member of the public. He said the person appeared to be “mamai”, which he said meant that “macam pengsan seketika”. He agreed in cross- 10 examination that he did not see the Appellant carrying the box or the socks which contained the drugs. S: Kamu tidak nampak sebab jarak jauh, setuju? J: Setuju. 15 S: Saya cadangkan kamu bukanlah saksi yang melihat kejadian tersebut nampak kotak jumpa dadah dan kotak? J: Saya memang tak tengok, setuju. [49] From the above, I found that he did not witness the whole incident 20 because of the distance. Moreover, being the Appellant’s friend, his evidence may be tainted with some biasness. The short duration of the videos (it was not shot as one complete video) also raised doubts in my mind because some parts could have been deleted where unfavourable to the defence. Why was the part where the 25 Appellant “pengsan seketika” i.e. unconscious (as opposed to “dazed”) not shown in the video? [50] In regard to the word “mamai” that he used, it means “dazed” or “confused’. It was apt to describe the condition of the Appellant at 30 S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA that time as seen in the videos. They did not show that the Appellant was unconscious. He was still responding to the policemen when they surrounded him after he fell. Even if he was unconscious for 15 seconds, the Court found that the drugs were not planted by the police. His suspicious conduct when SP1 shouted for him to stop 5 showed that he knew that he had the drugs with him. Therefore, there was no error committed by the SCJ in finding that the Appellant was in possession of the drugs at the material time. Moreover, the evidence that the Appellant was using the motorcycle belonging to his brother-in-law could not be challenged by the defence. 10 [51] It is trite law that the appellate court would not disturb the findings of the trial judge unless there are serious misdirections of fact and law. In Norisman Bin Rozali v PP [2015] 3 MLJ 125, the Court of Appeal held: 15 “[17] It is said that a judge who is required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accept or reject the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. He must when deciding whether to accept or to reject the evidence of a witness, test it against relevant criteria. That is judicial appreciation of 20 evidence, (see Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97; [2003] 2 CLJ 19). A trier of facts who makes finding based purely upon the demeanour of a witness without undertaking a critical analysis of that witness's evidence runs the risk of having his findings corrected on appeal.”. 25 [52] For good measure, I have reproduced relevant analysis and findings of the SCJ in regard to possession of the offending drugs and the court’s consideration of the defence case: “[34] Berdasarkan naratif kes pendakwaan, adalah jelas bahawa OKT 30 mempunyai proximity dengan cannabis tersebut yang berada di dalam bakul motosikal yang ditunggang oleh OKT. Namun, Mahkamah ini tidak boleh memutuskan bahawa “close proximity” ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut S/N jmmjd1ubrEODVibz5bUUA sahaja boleh menyimpulkan bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut. Pendekatan ini adalah selaras dengan panduan yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes Pendakwa Raya v. Loke Kah Choong [2019] MLJU 1596 … 5 [36] Keterangan yang dikemukakan sewaktu perbicaraan menunjukkan bahawa motosikal (P30) telah dibeli oleh SP2 pada 2013 untuk kegunaan sepupunya SP3, yang ketika itu sedang menyambung pengajian. SP3 menerangkan bahawa beliau menggunakan motosikal P30 tersebut dari tahun 2013 hingga penghujung tahun 2017. Pada penghujung tahun 2017, SP3 telah 10 meletakkan motosikal tersebut di kampungnya untuk digunakan oleh ayahnya. Motosikal tersebut kemudiannya diambil dan digunakan oleh OKT yang merupakan abang ipar SP3 sehinggalah OKT ditangkap. Keterangan SP2 dan SP3 jelas menunjukkan bahawa OKT telah menggunakan secara khusus dan mempunyai kawalan sepenuhnya ke atas motosikal tersebut sejak 2017 15 sehingga OKT ditangkap. Oleh yang demikian, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah tersebut kerana adalah jelas bahawa OKT menggunakan motosikal tersebut tanpa gangguan pihak ketiga dan OKT juga mempunyai kawalan sepenuhnya ke atas motosikal P30 tersebut. 20 … [44] Keterangan SD2 pula menjurus kepada rakaman yang dibuat olehnya dengan menggunakan telefon bimbit (ekshibit D33 [A] hingga [G]). Rakaman tersebut menunjukkan OKT sedang ditahan dan diperiksa oleh beberapa orang polis, termasuk SP1. Rakaman tersebut merujuk kepada insiden tangkapan 25 OKT sebagaimana yang diceritakan oleh SP1 dalam kes pendakwaan. Pihak pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa keterangan SP1 boleh disangkal dan menjadi goyah jika dibandingkan dengan rakaman D33 tersebut. Namun setelah diteliti, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa rakaman D33 (A), (B), (E) dan