Jika mahkamah mendapati bahawa suatu kes prima facie telah dibuat terhadap tertuduh atas kesalahan yang didakwa mahkamah hendaklah memanggil tertuduh untuk memasukkan pembelaannya. [5] Perkataan prima facie tidak ditakrifkan di bawah KTJ. Walau bagaimanapun Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Balacahandran v PP [2005] 1 AMR 321; [2005] 2 MLJ 301 menghuraikan akan ujian prima facie sebagaimana berikut: …The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case. [6] Bagi mengemukakan satu kes prima facie, pihak Pendakwaan harus menunjukkan intipati kesalahan telah dibuktikan iaitu dadah yang merupakan hal perkara pertuduhan adalah dadah berbahaya sepertimana yang ditetapkan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Akta), OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan tentang dadah berbahaya tersebut dan OKT mengedar dadah berbahaya itu. Penilaian dan Dapatan Mahkamah [7] Intipati kesalahan yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan adalah: i. Dadah berbahaya yang menjadi hal perkara pertuduhan adalah cannabis di bawah Akta iaitu ketulan mampat di dalam 32 peket plastik lutsinar tersebut adalah merupakah dadah yang tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama Akta; ii. OKT mempunyai pemilikan terhadap beg hitam/merah bertulis Arai Helmet dan pengetahuan tentang dadah tersebut yang mana di dalamnya terdapat 32 peket plastik mengandungi dadah tersebut; dan iii. OKT mengedarkan dadah tersebut. Dadah Berbahaya Menurut Akta [8] Bagi intipati pertama, tidak dipertikaikan dadah Cannabis menurut Akta adalah jenis dadah sebagaimana yang ditafsirkan di bawah s. 2 Akta atau seperti yang dijadualkan dalam Jadual Pertama Akta melalui keterangan SP7 yang mana Laporan Kimia (P14) di bawah seksyen 399 KTJ berkaitan rantaian keterangan barang kes dan kawalan SP7 atas barang kes tidak dipertikaikan. Intipati Pemilikan di sisi undang-undang [9] Pemilikan dalam ertikata undang-undang dihuraikan dalam kes Toh Ah Loh & MakThim v R [1949] 1 MLJ 54 yang menjelaskan : …Possession, in order to incriminate a person, must have the following characteristics. The possessor must know the nature of the thing possessed, must have in him a power of disposal over the thing, and lastly must be conscious of his possession of the thing. If these factors are absent, his possession can raise no presumption of mens rea, without which (except by statute) possession cannot be criminal. [10] Sehubungan dengan itu, Thomson J dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 1 MLJ 237 memutuskan bahawa : “Once possession is proved then before the accused person can be convicted it is necessary in addition to prove mens rea. And for this purpose, as was pointed out by Gordon-Smith Ag. C.J. in the case of Toh Ah Lam and Mak Thim v Rex (1949) MLJ 54, supra, it is necessary to prove that the person in possession knows the nature of the thing possessed. If the thing, as in Toh's case, is in a box which itself is in the possession of the accused it must be proved that he knew what was in the box. If, as in Lee's case, it was a lottery document it must be proved that he knew it was a lottery document. Here again knowledge cannot be proved by direct evidence, it can only be proved by inference from the surrounding circumstances. Again the possible variety of circumstances which will support such an inference is infinite. There may be something in the accused's behaviour that shews knowledge, or the nature of the thing may be so obvious that it is possible to say "he must have known what it was" or, again in cases under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, there may be a statutory presumption which fills a gap in the evidence.”. [11] Dalam keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes PP v Hafiszamrib Ahmad & Anor [2007] 1 AMR 483 Hassan Lah HMR (beliau ketika itu) menghuraikan di ms 490: “What constitutes possession? In Pendakwa Raya v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 the Federal Court has made the following observation on this point: [13] Now, as to what the ingredients of possession in law has been established by a long line of cases. We find it unnecessary to discuss all of them here. Suffice that we refer to two of them. In Toh Ah Loh & Mak Thim v. R [1948] 1 LNS 72; [1949] MLJ 54, Gordon-Smith Ag CJ when delivering judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal explained the meaning in law of the word "possession" when appearing in the statute. His Lordship said: Possession, in order to incriminate a person, must have the following characteristics. The possessor must know the nature of the thing possessed, must have in him a power of disposal over the thing, and lastly must be conscious of his possession of the thing. If these factors are absent, his possession can raise no presumption of mens rea, without which (except by statute) possession cannot be criminal. [14] The second is Saad Ibrahim v. PP [1967] 1 LNS 154; [1968] 1 MLJ 158 where Yong J stressed the necessity of establishing the ingredient of knowledge on the part of an accused before he could be incriminated with possession. His Lordship there said: In my opinion mere possession is one thing and possession with mens rea is another. Possession which incriminates must have certain characteristics. The possessor must be aware of his possession, must know the nature of the thing possessed and must have the power of disposal over it. Without these characteristics possession raised no presumption of mens rea. Without mens rea possession cannot be criminal except in certain cases created by statute, which is not applicable in this case. [15] We would also mention the learned judgment of Lim Beng Choon J in PP v. Badrulsham b Baharom [1987] 1 LNS 72; [1988] 2 MLJ 585, which contains a full discussion of the several cases on the point.”. [12] Dengan itu pemilikan harus mempunyai ciri-ciri kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan barang yang dimilikinya. Dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 MLJ 237, milikan dihuraikan sebagai: "Possession" itself as regards the criminal law is described as follows in Stephen's Digest (9th Edition, page 304):- "A moveable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons, and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need." To put it otherwise, there is a physical element and a mental element which must both be present before possession is made out. The accused must not only be so situated that he can deal with the thing as if it belonged to him, for example have it in his pocket or have it lying in front of him on a table. It must also be shewn that he had the intention of dealing with it as if it belonged to him should he see any occasion to do so, in other words, that he had some animus possidendi. Intention is a matter of fact which in the nature of things cannot be proved by direct evidence. It can only be proved by inference from the surrounding circumstances. Whether these surrounding circumstances make out such intention is a question of fact in each individual case. If a watch is in my pocket then in the absence of anything else the inference will be clear that I intend to deal with it as if it were my own and accordingly I am in possession of it. On the other hand, if it is lying on a table in a room in which I am but which is also frequently used by other people then the mere fact that I am in physical proximity to it does not give rise to the inference that I intend to deal with it as if it belonged to me. There must be some evidence that I am doing or having done something with it that shows such an intention. Or it must be clear that the circumstances in which it is found shew such an intention. It may be found in a locked room to which I hold the key or it may be found in a drawer mixed up with my own belongings or it may be found, as occurred in a recent case, in a box under my bed. The possible circumstances cannot be set out exhaustively and it is impossible to lay down any general rule on the point. But there must be something in the evidence to satisfy the Court that the person who is physically in a position to deal with the thing as his own had the intention of doing so. ”. [13] Dari huraian itu kawalan atau jagaan membawa maksud mempunyai penjagaan dan pengawalan atas barang tersebut. Seterusnya pengetahuannya akan sifat barang yang dalam pengawalan dan penjagaan itu merupakan pemilikan atas barang tersebut. Dengan itu pemilikan adalah apabila seseorang dalam keadaan mempunyai kuasa untuk menguruskan barang itu sebagai pemunya dengan mengecualikan orang lain. [14] Dalam kes Husin Sitorus v PP [2012] 7 CLJ 205 menjelaskan akan keperluan kepada pihak pendakwaan untuk mengecualikan orang lain kepada dadah yang dipersoalkan itu dengan mengatakan: “[15] There is a welter of authoritative precedents which have held that for possession to be established, accessibility by others to the place where the drugs are found should be excluded by evidence by the prosecution (PP v. Kang Ho Soh [1991] 3 CLJ 2914; [1991] 3 CLJ (Rep) 557 HC, PP v. Tang Chew Weng [1969] 1 LNS 141 HC. The onus is not on the defence to prove possibility of access by others but on the prosecution to exclude such possibility and the issue must be answered in favour of the appellant if there were more than one way in which the evidence adduced by the prosecution might be viewed such as in the present case, implicating the appellant or the other persons who were present in the boat. (Abdullah Zawawi Yusoff v. PP [1993] 4 CLJ 1 SC). In other words exclusivity of custody and control of the drugs ought to be established by the prosecution.”. [15] Dengan itu pihak pendakwaan harus membuktikan OKT mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan dadah yang dalam jagaannya itu dengan mengecualikan orang lain mempunyai akses pada tempat di mana dadah itu dikatakan dijumpai. Selain itu, pengetahuan itu boleh ditunjukkan dari fakta hal keadaan sesuatu kes itu. [16] Berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan SP1, SP4, SP5 dan SP6, bangsal tersebut adalah suatu tempat terbuka yang boleh diakses oleh orang lain. Ia merupakan satu tempat awam yang tidak dipagari dan boleh diakses oleh orang ramai. Isu berkaitan beg hitam/merah bertulis ‘Arai Helmet’ (P13) dan isi kandungannya (P11A(1-32)) [17] Terdapat persoalan fakta berkaitan beg hitam/merah yang dikatakan dimiliki OKT. Saksi pendakwaan SP4, memberi keterangan bahawa OKT mempunyai kawalan terhadap beg hitam/merah bertulis Arai Helmet tersebut. Pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa tiada orang lain dilihat memegang beg tersebut melainkan OKT yang mana menunjukkan bahawa hanya OKT seorang sahaja yang memiliki kawalan atau jagaan terhadap beg tersebut. Pernyataan bertulis SP4 pada perenggan 7 yang menyatakan: “7. Saya kemudian bertanya kepada OKT samada ada menyimpan apa barang-barang salah. OKT kemudian telah mengambil (1) beg sandang warna hitam/merah bertulis Arai Helmet dan serahkan kepada saya.”. [18] Sebelum itu, pada perenggan 5 Pernyataan bertulis SP4, menyatakan telah membuat pemeriksaan identiti dan tubuh badan OKT tetapi tidak menjumpai barang salah. Ini memberikan inferens bahawa semasa pemeriksaan tubuh badan tersebut, beg sandang hitam/merah tidak dipegang oleh OKT. [19] Bagi kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini disamping fakta yang dikatakan oleh SP4, terdapat fakta lain yang diberitahu oleh saksi pihak pendakwaan iaitu melalui Mohd Danial bin Mohd Zaini (SP6) yang merupakan saksi mata yang berada di tempat kejadian. [20] Pihak pembelaan telah menimbulkan persoalan sama ada beg sandang warna hitam/merah bertulis ‘Arai Helmet’ (P13) dan isi kandungannya (P11A(1-32)) diserahkan oleh OKT kepada SP4 ataupun telah ditemui oleh SP4 sendiri di bawah pondok bangsal tersebut seperti keterangan saksi awam yang berada di tempat kejadian iaitu SP6. SP6 dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa beliau nampak SP4 mengangkat tinggi beg sandang tersebut (yang tidak tahu dari mana ia diambil) sambil bertanya kepada semua orang siapa milikan beg ini. [21] Semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh pihak Pembelaan, SP5 telah bersetuju untuk mengeluarkan perenggan 4 hingga 6 daripada Pernyataan Saksinya dan menyatakan beliau tidak pasti apa yang berlaku antara SP4 dan OKT semasa serbuan. “Q: Kpl kata tidak pasti apa yang dilakukan oleh SI Razak terhadap lelaki X. Tetapi dalam perenggan 4 hingga 6 kamu cakap sebaliknya. Jadi saya katakan perenggan 4 hingga 6 ini boleh buang sebab kamu tidak pasti. Setuju dengan saya sebab kamu tidak pasti apa yang berlaku, boleh perenggan 4 hingga 6 ini? A: Setuju. Q: Setuju ya perenggan 4 hingga 6 dibuang dari pernyataan kamu. A: Setuju.” [22] SP6 telah memberi keterangan bahawa tidak nampak OKT membawa dan/atau memegang beg sandang di bangsal pada hari kejadian dan tidak nampak OKT serahkan beg sandang yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya kepada SP4. [23] Dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi B. Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 395, [2006] 6 AMR 203, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan bahawa: “(i) the close of the prosecution’s case, …. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused;” [24] Keterangan SP4 dan SP6 secara keseluruhannya bukan hanya berkisar kepada percanggahan bagaimana serbuan dibuat ke atas OKT tetapi kepada keseluruhan peristiwa atau insiden yang berlaku pada tempat kejadian, siapa yang berada di bangsal tersebut dan di mana lokasi sebenarnya beg sandang yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya tersebut dijumpai. Seharusnya tidak wujud kelompangan yang ketara sedemikian. [25] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa keterangan SP6 boleh dipercayai yang berada di tempat kejadian. Keterangan SP6 juga tidak dicabar kebolehpercayaan keterangannya (di bawah s. 155 Akta Keterangan 1950). [26] Di dalam kes PP V. Tan Tatt Eek [2005] 4 CLJ 460 memutuskan untuk inferens pengetahuan, bukti dan keterangan berkaitan tindakan OKT hendaklah dibuktikan “against the possibility that the evidences adduced must not be capable of inferences consistent with innocence”. Mahkamah memutuskan: "The main issue in this case is whether on the facts the respondent had knowledge of the drugs in the plastic bag. In our view, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that there was no factual matrix adduced by the prosecution to infer that the respondent had knowledge of the nature of the drugs in the bag. On the evidence, the learned trial judge erred in finding that the respondent had knowledge of the drugs by way of inferences and from the circumstances of the case. In this case, the respondent was seen and found to be carrying the orange plastic bag in his right hand and having dropped the bag he reacted with shock when he was arrested by the police. The learned trial judge held that the respondent had physical custody and control of the bag, and we see that he was right in coming to that conclusion. However, he went further to find by inference from the respondent's conduct and appearance that the respondent had knowledge of the drugs in the bag. To our minds, such a finding was not justified on the evidence before him. [27] Oleh itu timbul persoalan dan keraguan mengenai siapa pemilik sebenar kepada beg sandang yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya tersebut dan lokasinya semasa dijumpai di tempat kejadian. Ini menimbulkan keraguan dan/atau kelompangan dalam naratif pendakwaan tentang keberadaan beg sandang dan pemiliknya. [28] Tertuduh tidak melarikan diri setelah pihak polis memperkenalkan diri mereka. Mahkamah boleh membuat inferens bahawa reaksi OKT adalah sama dengan seorang yang tidak bersalah dan tidak mempunyai pengetahuan akan beg sandang yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya di bangsal tersebut kerana sepanjang masa serbuan bekerjasama tiada melarikan diri atau pergelutan berdasarkan keterangan SP4. [29] Tiada keterangan forensik yang boleh mengaitkan OKT dengan beg sandang dan isi kandungannya atau laporan ujian cap jari atau DNA bagi membuktikan kaitan antara OKT dan beg sandang untuk membuktikan OKT memiliki beg sandang dan isi kandungannya. Selain itu, tiada barang dan/atau dokumen peribadi OKT dijumpai dalam beg sandang tersebut pada semua masa yang material. [30] Dengan alasan-alasan dan dari fakta kes pihak pendakwaan tidak terdapat sebarang keterangan yang menunjukkan OKT mengedar dadah berkenaan. Kesimpulan [31] Mahkamah dengan ini telah menimbang semua bukti yang ada secara maksima dan memutuskan pihak pendakwaan telah gagal mengemukakan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT atas pertuduhan yang dihadapinya. OKT dengan ini dilepas dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan. t.t. (DR. SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI SHAH ALAM (JENAYAH 4) TARIKH: 30 MAC 2023 COUNSEL Bagi Pihak Perayu: Chris Kooi Tetuan Kit & Associates Peguambela dan Peguamcara Bagi Pihak Responden: TPR Tengku Intan Suraya Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor