[Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] v MUH RUDI BIN ISMAIL (CB-45B-3-12/2021)

Orang Kena Tuduh (OKT) telah dikemukakan dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan seperti yang berikut: “BAHAWA KAMU PADA 23 NOVEMBER 2021, JAM DI ANTARA 2.00 PETANG HINGGA 4.40 PETANG, BERTEMPAT DI KAWASAN LADANG KELAPA SAWIT, BERSEBELAHAN KILANG KKIW TIMBER, BATU 5, JALAN KARAK, PO BOX 9, 28407 MENTAKAB, DI DALAM DAERAH TEMERLOH, DI DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR TELAH MELAKUKAN BUNUH HINGGA MENYEBABKAN KEMATIAN TERHADAP SUKRI BIN JAMAL (NO. PASPORT AT 927353) DAN DENGAN ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 302 KANUN KESEKSAAN.”

Kehilangan nyawa manusia adalah sesuatu yang serius. Oleh itu undang-undang jenayah telah memperuntukkan hukuman mati kepada individu yang disabitkan dengan pertuduhan tersebut walaupun kini hukuman mati bukan lagi satu hukuman mandatori.

Keseriusan kesalahan ini dan hukuman yang berat menunjukkan Mahkamah perlu meneliti keterangan yang dikemukakan dengan sewajarnya. Ia bagi mengelakkan seseorang yang dibuktikan melakukan kesalahan tersebut terlepas dari hukuman atau seseorang yang tidak dibuktikan melakukan kesalahan tidak disabit. Semua ini berdasarkan kepada keterangan dan pembuktian. Ia bukan disebabkan sudut pandang seseorang kepada sesuatu fakta atau perasaan simpati kepada simati atau OKT. Jika keputusan sesuatu kes itu diselubungi oleh fakta-fakta yang bukannya keterangan dan pembuktian, ia menimbulkan ketidakadilan. Ia wajib dielakkan.

Mahkamah mengharapkan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dan peguam bela untuk mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan yang menyokong dakwaan dan pembelaan. Berdasarkan kepada pendakwaan dan pembelaan yang bermutu tinggi, ia dapat membantu Mahkamah menjalankan keadilan. Inilah yang diharapkan daripada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dan peguam bela dalam mengendalikan kes ini supaya keadilan dapat ditegakkan berdasarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah ini. Mahkamah harus mengelakkan daripada meneliti perkara-perkara lain selain daripada keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah ini.

Adalah menjadi tugas Pendakwa Raya di akhir kes pendakwaan untuk menunjukkan satu kes prima facie. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 180 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ). Frasa prima facie telah dijelaskan dalam kes Abdullah Atan v PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ 151 seperti yang berikut: “[42] The purpose of s. 180(4) CPC was thus not to exclude the use of presumptions, inferences, or anything other than direct evidence, to establish a prima facie case. On the contrary:

the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau itself expressly envisaged that inferences may be drawn from the primary facts adduced, and the court must presume such inferences to be true at the close of the prosecution's case; and

(ii) statutory presumptions have often been invoked by the prosecution in order to establish a prima facie case of drug trafficking in previous cases. No concern was raised in Parliament as to the use of presumptions when considering amendments to s. 180 of the CPC (see Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v. PP [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 311; [1991] 3 MLJ 169; and Tan Boon Kean v. PP [1995] 4 CLJ 456; [1995] 3 MLJ 514). [43]Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its context and legislative purpose. By so doing, the phrase "credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence" in s. 180(4) means that the prosecution may prove each ingredient of the offence either:

by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient;

(ii) by drawing inferences of fact, ie, adducing credible circumstantial evidence, from which the ingredient can be inferred; or

(iii) by invoking presumptions of law, ie, adducing credible evidence of the relevant basic facts, to invoke a statutory presumption that the ingredient exists. [44] As to what constitutes 'a prima facie ' case, the judgment of Vincent Ng J (as he then was) in PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong (supra) was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse His Lordship's views, at p. 225: What then constitutes a 'prima facie case'? 'Prima facie ' means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive". It would follow that there should be credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the offence. Credible evidence is evidence which has been filtered and which has gone through the process of evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be acted upon, should be rejected. (emphasis added) At p. 224, His Lordship said: ... to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation, on a prima facie basis, of each and every essential ingredient of the charge as tested in cross-examination. In other words, maximum evaluation connotes quantitative rather than qualitative evaluation of the evidence; with focus more on the evidential burden in terms of evidence led, rather than the persuasive burden in terms of qualitative degree of proof. [45] The only basis of learned counsel's contention that the presumption in s. 37(da) cannot be invoked to establish a prima facie case under s. 180 of the CPC, is that presumption is not evidence. Hence, it was argued that in relying on such presumption, it cannot be said that the prosecution has "adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence" under s. 180(4) of the CPC. The argument is premised purely on semantics.”

Keterangan di dalam kes ini ialah OKT telah dilihat bersama-sama dengan simati. OKT dan simati dikatakan telah dilihat oleh salah seorang saksi bertengkar di luar kawasan kilang. Selepas itu mereka berdua berlalu pergi. Seorang saksi telah melihat OKT kembali ke kilang itu berseorangan. Ini bermakna mereka pergi berdua namun yang kembali hanya OKT seorang sahaja. Rakan-rakan simati telah membuat pencarian kepada keberadaan simati dan akhirnya telah ditemui mayat simati.

SP13 (ASP Raja Munawir Shah bin Raja Harun) telah menjumpai sebilah parang dan telefon. SP13 juga menyatakan pada 26.11.2020 OKT telah mendedahkan bahawa lawi ayam itu dibuang oleh OKT di ladang kelapa sawit. Ini dapat dilihat melalui laporan polis Temerloh Rpt. 0054921/20 (P44).

Keterangan saksi pendakwaan juga menunjukkan bahawa parang lawi ayam, tuala merah jambu dan telefon bimbit telah ditemui dan diakui telah diambil daripada OKT melalui dokumen yang dikemukakan sebagai eksibit P46.

Eksibit-eksibit yang telah ditemui dan dikemukakan untuk ujian DNA. Ahli kimia telah mengeluarkan laporan DNA. Di dalam laporan DNA itu terdapat keterangan-keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan kewujudan DNA OKT pada beberapa eksibit tersebut. Pada masa yang sama terdapat juga eksibit yang tidak mempunyai DNA OKT. Pada masa yang sama terdapat juga DNA-DNA lelaki yang tidak dikenali.

Pada akhir kes pendakwaan Mahkamah ini berpendapat pihak pendakwaan telah dapat menunjukkan satu kes prima facie. Ia berdasarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan penelitian kepada eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwa Raya. Mahkamah juga dapat melihat gambar-gambar tempat kejadian bagi mendapat gambaran yang jelas berkenaan dengan tempat kejadian. Mahkamah pada akhir kes pendakwaan telah berpuas hati bahawa elemen-elemen kesalahan bagi pertuduhan yang dikemukakan terhadap OKT telah berjaya ditunjukkan oleh Pendakwa Raya. Oleh yang demikian OKT dipanggil membela diri.

Semasa mengemukakan pembelaan, OKT terus menyatakan bahawa dia tidak terlibat di dalam kematian simati. Malahan OKT telah mengemukakan seorang saksi seorang pegawai perubatan yang mengesahkan bahawa OKT telah mendapatkan rawatan perubatan setelah mengalami kecederaan akibat daripada pergaduhan dengan simati. Walau bagaimanapun, pegawai perubatan tersebut tidak dapat mengesahkan apakah punca kecederaan yang dialami oleh OKT dalam kes ini. Apa yang dapat diberitahu oleh pegawai perubatan tersebut bahawa dia boleh mengesahkan ada memberikan rawatan kepada OKT.

OKT dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa kecederaan yang dialaminya itu adalah ekoran daripada terkena dengan senjata yang diakibatkan oleh tindakan simati. OKT telah menyatakan dia melarikan diri selepas mengalami kecederaan tersebut serta tidak mengetahui apakah yang berlaku kepada simati sehinggalah mayatnya ditemui dan OKT dibawa oleh pihak polis ke tempat kejadian.

Pada akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah perlu meneliti keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan di dalam kes ini. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 182A KPJ seperti yang berikut: “182A Procedure at the conclusion of the trial

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court shall find the accused guilty and he may be convicted on it.

If the Court finds that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.”

Oleh itu Mahkamah meneliti keseluruhan keterangan dalam kes ini daripada saksi-saksi Pendakwa Raya dan saksi-saksi pembelaan. Apa yang jelas daripada keterangan-keterangan tersebut ialah tiada terdapatnya saksi mata berkenaan dengan kejadian pembunuhan yang dikatakan melihatkan kematian simati disebabkan oleh tindakan OKT. Ini bermakna keterangan yang ada adalah merupakan keterangan sekeliling. Mahkamah mendapati tiada keterangan terus berkenaan dengan kejadian pembunuhan tersebut.

Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa apabila Mahkamah berdasarkan kepada keterangan sekeliling, penelitian yang rapi perlu dibuat terhadap keterangan-keterangan bagi memastikan bahawa ianya mencukupi untuk digunakan bagi mensabitkan Tertuduh. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Chan Chwen Kong v Public Prosecutor [1962] 1 MLJ 307 di mana YAA Thomson, Ketua Hakim Negara menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “In the first place we have listened to a careful, accurate and detailed analysis of the evidence against the appellant. That evidence was entirely circumstantial and what the criticism of it amounts to is this, that no single piece of that evidence is strong enough to sustain the convictions. That is very true. It must, however, be borne in mind that in cases like this where the evidence is wholly circumstantial what has to be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of evidence but also the combined strength of these strands when twisted together to make a rope. The real question is: is that rope strong enough to hang the prisoner?”

Ia juga dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes PP v. Jitweer Singh Ojagar Singh [2014] 1 CLJ 433 seperti yang berikut: “[42] The act was not witnessed. But based on our aforesaid maximum evaluation, the circumstantial evidence gave rise to the one and only logical inference that it was the accused and the accused alone who caused the death of the deceased. The combined strands of evidence, when twisted together (see Chan Chwen Kong v. PP [1962] CLJU 22; [1962] 1 LNS 22; [1962] 1 MLJ 307) had made out the ingredients of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. There was a prima facie case that would warrant conviction if the accused were to elect to remain silent. We therefore unanimously set aside the acquittal and order the accused to enter upon his defence, before the same trial court.”

Apa yang jelas bagi mensabitkan seseorang Tertuduh berdasarkan kepada keterangan sekeliling, keterangan-keterangan tersebut hendaklah hanya menjurus kepada satu kesimpulan bahawa Tertuduh sahaja orang yang menyebabkan kematian simati.

Dalam kes ini keterangan-keterangan sekeliling yang dapat dilihat dan dikesan oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti yang berikut:

OKT dan simati adalah kenal antara satu sama lain. OKT ada berhutang dengan simati bagi permainan judi. OKT adalah diminta oleh simati menjelaskan hutang tersebut. Ini adalah keterangan OKT semasa pembelaan dan juga seorang saksi SP5 yang memberi keterangan semasa kes pendakwaan;

OKT dan simati telah dilihat bersama-sama sejurus sebelum kejadian. Kejadian itu maksudnya sejurus selepas simati tidak ditemui;

OKT juga mengalami kecederaan;

Kecederaan yang dialami oleh simati berkemungkinan disebabkan senjata lawi ayam menurut patalogist;

Motosikal yang ditemui adalah sama dengan motosikal yang dilihat OKT dan simati bersama-sama sebelum daripada mayat simati dijumpai;

Mayat simati ditemui selepas kali terakhir OKT dikatakan dilihat bersama-sama simati;

Tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan simati dilihat selepas pertemuan dengan OKT;

OKT telah mengalami kecederaan dan menerima rawatan daripada SD 2;

OKT dalam pembelaannya menyatakan ia adalah hasil tindakan simati. Selepas itu beliau melarikan diri. Dalam hal ini Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati bahawa perlu membezakan insiden yang berlaku yang melibatkan OKT dan simati dengan pertuduhan yang sedang dihadapi oleh OKT iaitu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.

Adakah senarai keterangan-keterangan sekeliling di atas dapat membawa kepada satu kesimpulan bahawa OKT adalah individu yang terlibat di dalam pembunuhan yang menyebabkan kematian simati. Ini adalah disebabkan penelitian Mahkamah mendapati tiada DNA OKT di lawi ayam. Sementara itu tiada DNA orang lain di parang yang ditemui melainkan DNA OKT sahaja dan tiada DNA simati pada parang tersebut. Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga mendapati terdapat DNA-DNA lelaki-lelaki lain pada barang-barang yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah. Pada hemat Mahkamah ia mencadangkan bahawa terdapatnya individu lain yang berkemungkinan berada bersama-sama simati sebelum mayat simati ditemui dan setelah OKT meninggalkan simati untuk mendapatkan rawatan daripada SD2.

Kewujudan DNA individu lain pada eksibit-eksibit yang dinyatakan di atas mencadangkan bahawa terdapatnya kemungkinan orang lain yang boleh melakukan pembunuhan tersebut. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes PP v Hanif Basree Abdul Rahman [2008] 4 CLJ 1. Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa dalam kes Hanif Basree Abdul Rahman (supra) tersebut kewujudan lelaki yang tidak dikenali itu diperolehi daripada badan simati. Ini dapat dilihat seperti yang berikut: “Unknown Male 1 [13] The chemist found DNA of an unidentified male person from the deceased's vagina, swab from the deceased's rectum, semen stain on the bolster, the black brassiere, finger nail clippings of the left hand of the deceased, strand of hairs found on the comforter and finally the electrical cord used to tie the legs of the deceased. The chemist referred to this person as the "Unknown Male 1".”

Penelitian kepada laporan DNA dalam kes ini mendapati bahawa terdapat profil DNA lelaki lain iaitu:

Terdapat profil DNA lelaki lain yang diperolehi daripada putung rokok 1 dan kesatan pada kotak rokok 3 yang tidak berpadanan dengan DNA OKT dan simati. Ia telah dinyatakan sebagai “Lelaki 1” oleh ahli kimia.

(ii) Begitu juga terdapatnya DNA lelaki yang diperolehi daripada putung rokok 2 yang tidak berpadanan dengan profil DNA simati dan OKT yang dinamakan sebagai “Lelaki 2”.

(iii) Begitu juga terdapatnya DNA lelaki yang diperolehi daripada putung rokok 4 yang tidak berpadanan dengan profil DNA simati dan OKT yang dinamakan sebagai “Lelaki 3”.

(iv) Mahkamah ini juga mendapati bahawa terdapat satu profil DNA lelaki daripada keratan kuku yang tidak berpadanan dengan DNA OKT dan simati. Ia telah dinamakan sebagai DNA “Lelaki 4”.

Ini menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kehadiran pihak ketiga dan hubung kait mereka dengan eksibit-eksibit tersebut yang membawa kesimpulan bahawa berkemungkinan pihak ketiga yang tidak dapat dikenalpasti terlibat di dalam pembunuhan simati. Ia bermaksud keterangan sekeliling yang ada tidak dapat menunjukkan arah secara muktamad dan pasti bahawa OKT yang membunuh simati.

Mahkamah ini juga mendapati terdapat DNA-DNA lelaki lain iaitu Lelaki 1, Lelaki 2, Lelaki 3 dan Lelaki 4 pada barang-barang yang ditemui sepanjang penyiasatan kes ini.

Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu mempertimbangkan hujahan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya yang menyatakan bahawa mayat simati ditemui selepas 2 hari, oleh itu mengikut hujahan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya itu memungkinkan mengapa kesan-kesan DNA tidak diperolehi di tempat-tempat yang sepatutnya diperolehi kesan DNA tersebut. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa laporan DNA adalah hanya merupakan keterangan sokongan. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Yong Choo Kiong v. PP [2025] 10 CLJ 533; [2026] 1 MLRA 76 seperti yang berikut: "[70] Counsel for the appellant also raised the issue that no DNA of the appellant was found on the mop that was used to mop the appellant's semen in the said room. The evidence before the court was that PW15 had mopped the sticky liquid found on the floor after the incident with a mop that was already soaked with soap. The existence or non-existence of the appellant's DNA on the said mop is subject to various factors that could not be conclusively determined by the forensic expert. In any event, the DNA evidence is only corroborative in nature and would not affect the prosecution's case if there is sufficient evidence to prove the element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. We are also of the view that the non-existence of the appellant's DNA on the mop does not affect PW15's credibility, in the light of the totality of evidence. [71] The corroborative nature of DNA evidence has been explained, among others, in the case of Ng Mee Yee & Anor v. PP [2025] 6 CLJ 343; Lingeswaran Ambalakhan v. PP [2025] CLJU 1473; Francis Abuchi Odike v. Public Prosecutor [2015] CLJU 928 and Lee Gee Hian v. Public Prosecutor [2021] CLJU 1895."

Pada masa yang sama, Mahkamah juga perlu mengambil kira laporan DNA iaitu ekshibit P32 iaitu terdapatnya profil DNA campuan di antara simati dan OKT. Ia dapat diihat melalui keratan kuku F1. Ini menunjukan bahawa terdapatnya sentuhan di antara simati dan OKT. Ia secara tidak langsung dapat menangkis dakwaan OKT bahawa dia tidak bersentuhan dengan simati seperti yang dinyatakan didalam keterangan OKT. Namun begitu, adakah kewujudan DNA OKT dan simati sudah memadai untuk menunjukkan bahawa OKT yang menyebabkan kematian simati. Pada hemat mahkamah sentuhan tersebut hanya menunjukkan terdapatnya hubungan fizikal di antara OKT dan simati. Mahkamah ini mendapati tiada keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan ianya menjurus kepada tindakan OKT yang membolehkan kematian simati.

Mahkamah ini berpendapat di dalam kes ini kewujudan individu-individu lain di dalam laporan DNA menunjukkan bahawa keterangan sokongan melalui laporan DNA itu tidak dapat menyokong keterangan-keterangan substantif yang dikemukakan di dalam kes ini. Teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama

Satu daripada hujahan yang dikemukakan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya ialah sandaran kepada teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama OKT. Pendakwa Raya merujuk kepada kes Salem Brayon v. PP [2023 1 CLJ 739 yang menjelaskan berkenaan dengan teori tersebut seperti yang berikut: “[52] Another important point was also advanced before us by the respondent concerning the principle of the last person having been seen together with the deceased before she was discovered dead. PW17, the sole eyewitness to the incident, who was accepted by the LJ to be a credible and truthful witness testified that the appellant was with the deceased when she left the room after the incident when the commotion stopped. Another witness, PW14, testified that she saw the appellant leave the deceased's room around 10.20pm. [53] Our attention was drawn to the Indian Supreme Court decision of Ashok v. State of Maharashtra [2015] 4 Supreme Court 393 where the Supreme Court of India held that: The "last seen together" theory has been elucidated by this Court in Trimukh Marotiu Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006] 10 SCC 106, in the following words: Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer an explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Thus, the doctrine of last seen together shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against him. [54] Under the circumstances of this case where, in our view, the 'last seen together' theory applies, the burden shifted to the appellant to proffer a strong and cogent explanation and rebut the presumption that his act or series of acts led to the deceased's death and the inference that he committed the acts. The absence of such an explanation would be detrimental to his defence. (See Nika Ram v. State Of HP (1972) 2 SCC 80; Kanhaiya Lai v. State Of Rajasthan [2014] 4 SCC 715). [55] Having properly and carefully considered the sworn testimony given by the appellant in his defence together with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the LJ concluded that the appellant's version was no more than a bare denial that was incapable of raising a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case considering that on credible evidence he had admittedly inflicted grave injuries on the deceased and was the last person seen with the deceased on that fateful night. The LJ had rightly evaluated and given weight to the credibility of the appellant compared to that of the vital prosecution eyewitness, PW17, whose testimony he preferred over the appellant's testimony as it was, in all respects, consistent and credible. Additionally, she was an independent and uninterested witness, which, to our minds, is a correct finding.”

Penelitian kepada kes tersebut mendapati bahawa terdapat keterangan daripada seorang saksi PW17 yang melihat Tertuduh dalam kes tersebut telah memukul simati dengan teruknya dan melihat simati telah ditolak ke dinding. Ia disokong juga dengan keterangan SP 10 dalam kes tersebut. Hal ini dapat dilihat seperti yang berikut: “[40] In our view, the LJ had duly given emphasis and weight to the uncontradicted evidence of PW17, who was at the scene and the sole eye witness and testified that she saw the appellant hit the deceased aggressively and also saw the appellant push the deceased to the wall in the course of the prolonged and relentless attack on her. [41] We concur with the contention of the respondent that the evidence of PW17 was corroborated by the evidence of PW10 that the cause of death of the deceased is head injury due to blunt force trauma. During the visit to the scene, PW10 also noticed that the concrete wall can be considered as a blunt and hard object. [42] More importantly, from a scrutiny of the evidence and surrounding facts as a whole, it was abundantly clear, as taken cognisance of by the LJ, that the appellant's act of pushing the deceased to the concrete wall which was the culmination of the series of beatings inflicted on her was the ultimate cause of her death. As contended by the respondent, the material facts relating to this incident were never challenged by the appellant. There was no intervening cause after the attack by the appellant prior to the deceased being discovered dead. [43] PW10's evidence that the wall at the scene was a hard, blunt object sufficient to cause fatal injuries to the head upon forceful impact negated the appellant's defence that the impact to the head was only to a soft wall and, thus, could not be intended to cause such bodily injuries that would in the natural course result in the deceased's death.”

Secara umumnya, teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama adalah merupakan salah satu aspek daripada keterangan sekeliling. Ia telah diterima di dalam sistem perundangan di India. Ia akan digunakan sekiranya tiada keterangan langsung yang mengaitkan OKT dengan satu kesalahan. OKT sewajarnya memberikan penjelasan berkenaan dengan keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa dia telah kelihatan bersama-sama dengan simati sebelum kejadian tersebut. Hal ini telah dijelaskan dengan menarik dalam artikel bertajuk Beyond Mere Presence: A Critical Look at the 'Last Seen' Theory in Circumstantial Evidence oleh Arjun Punaji, National Law School of Indian University https://ssrn.com/abstract=4887454 yang menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “The Last Seen Theory is based on the principle that if an accused was last seen with the deceased, and the deceased is found dead shortly after, the burden of explaining what happened shifts to the accused. This theory is often used when there's no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. Last seen theory is one in which two people are seen together one last time and one is found alive after an interval of time, and another is dead. An assumption is that last one to see the deceased before death, has the knowledge of the last moments of the deceased and no one else. Accordingly, accused supposed to give satisfactory evidence to the court and rebut the prosecution allegation, if accused withhold information, court could draw adverse inference and presumed him as author of the crime. It does not independently and conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused, but it does trigger by raising suspicion and able to connect the dots of relation between the accused and the victim of last moments and can be used with corroboration to convict the accused. …”

Walau bagaimanapun Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam menggunakan teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan suatu sabitan tidak boleh semata-mata berdasarkan kepada teori tersebut. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Agong di India baru-baru ini dalam kes Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha [2025] INSC 751 seperti yang berikut:

This Court in Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan6 has held that evidence on 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred: "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere nonexplanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.

The theory of last seen-the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan,(2010) 15 SCC 588."

Similarly, this Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh7 has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13: "12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.

In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N.

12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21- 24) "21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar

Supp (2) SCC 372 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31) '31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.'

This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 held that: (SCC p. 63, para 31) '31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.' It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together.

There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-4-2004 at Vadakkumelur Village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire service personnel after more than seven days. There is no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accused and in the intervening period of seven days there was nobody in contact with the deceased.

In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed."

In the case at hand also the only evidence against the appellant is of 'last seen together'. The evidence of motive does not satisfy us to be an adverse circumstance against the appellant inasmuch as if the appellant has any doubt about his wife's chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to wife's cousin with whom he had no animosity. Moreover, the so-called weapon of the offence i.e. the stone has not been recovered at his instance nor there is any memorandum statement of the appellant.

On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises doubt that he may have committed murder but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on 'last seen together'.”

Apa yang jelas daripada pemakaian teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama ini ia tidak boleh dengan sewenang-wenangnya digunakan untuk suatu sabitan. Ini adalah disebabkan ia adalah sebahagian daripada cabang keterangan sekeliling. Pada hemat Mahkamah ini tidak wajar untuk seseorang disabitkan dengan pertuduhan semata-mata atas kegagalan OKT untuk menjelaskan berkenaan dengan keterangan mengenai keberadaannya bersama simati sejurus sebelum kematian simati. Ia akan hanya boleh dilakukan sekiranya terdapat keterangan-keterangan lain yang jelas menunjukkan penglibatan OKT di dalam kes ini.

Mahkamah Rayuan telah memperincikan pemakaian teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama di dalam kes Maung Zaw Min v Pendakwa Raya [2025] CLJU 3019 dengan antara lain menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “[24] Penulis terkemuka Ratanlal & Dhirajlal di dalam penulisannya “Law of Crimes” 29th Edisi ke 29 Vol. 2 di muka surat 1722 menjelaskan: “(d) Last seen’ theory-The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. The last seen evidence does not necessarily mean that the respondent killed the deceased. Unless the time gap between the deceased having been last seen in the company of accused person and murder is proximate it is difficult to prove the guilt of accused only on that basis.”

Mahkamah Rayuan juga telah menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “[31] Mahkamah Agung di India dalam kes Ashok v. State of Maharashtra [2015] 4 Supreme Court 393, telah memberikan penerangan lanjut mengenai teori “last seen together” seperti yang berikut: “The latest judgment on the point is Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, [2014] 4 SCC 715. In this case this Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing the connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the accused by itself cannot lead to the proof of guilt against the accused. From the study of the above stated judgments and many others delivered by this Court over a period of years, the rule can be summarized as that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. However, in case of last seen together, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge of the incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused etc., non-explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt.” [Penekanan diberikan].

Setelah meneliti dalam keterangan kes tersebut, Mahkamah berpendapat ianya dapat menyokong teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama dalam konteks seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950. Ini dapat dilihat melalui perenggan [28] kes tersebut yang menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “[28] Keterangan yang positif juga diperolehi dengan penzahiran perbuatan/tindakan Perayu yang telah meninggalkan tempat kejadian dalam lingkungan waktu semasa simati telah ditemui mati. Perayu ditangkap di Stesen Bas UTC Sungai Petani semasa Perayu sedang berurusan mencari tiket ke Kuala Lumpur. Keterangan perbuatan/tindakan Perayu ini yang berlaku pada hari yang sama selepas simati ditemui mati ini adalah merupakan keterangan sokongan yang menguatkan lagi teori ‘last seen” ini kerana perbuatan/tindakan Perayu ini adalah satu fakta yang relevan mengikut seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 yang menunjukkan persediaan Perayu untuk meninggalkan Sungai Petani setelah berlakunya satu pembunuhan yang melibatkan simati rakan sekerjanya.”

Mahkamah ini berpendapat di dalam kes ini keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwa Raya terutamanya terdapatnya DNA pihak ketiga pada eksibit-eksibit tersebut serta penemuan mayat simati 2 hari selepas kejadian perlu diberikan perhatian dalam menentukan sama ada teori orang terakhir dilihat bersama dengan simati boleh digunakan. Di samping itu keterangan saksi yang melihat OKT dan simati berada bersama dan dikatakan telah berlaku pertengkaran atau pertikaman lidah namun saksi tersebut tidak dapat memastikan apakah pertikaian tersebut dan hanya dapat mengesahkan bahawa kedua-dua mereka beredar di tempat tersebut tidak boleh menggunakan teori orang terakhir lihat bersama digunakan dalam fakta dan keterangan dalam kes ini.

Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu berhati-hati dan tidak mengambil pendekatan bahawa disebabkan terdapat DNA pihak ketiga, maka secara automatik ia menunjukkan kesalahan itu mungkin dilakukan oleh pihak ketiga tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan kemungkinan DNA pihak ketiga tersebut adalah berpunca daripada pegawai penyiasat, pegawai serbuan atau anggota-anggota polis yang mengendalikan barang kes tersebut. Ini disebabkan tiada pengesahan DNA siapakah yang terdapat di dalam eksibit-eksibit tersebut yang boleh dikatakan sebagai pihak ketiga.

Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa tugas pendakwaan adalah untuk membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan munasabah. Ianya tidak terletak di bahu Tertuduh. Ini dinyatakan dalam kes Rosli Yusof v PP [2021] 7 CLJ 681 seperti yang berikut: “[45] It is trite law that it is not the duty of the appellant to prove his innocence or to call a particular witness to support his defence (see Tan Foo Su v. PP [1967] CLJU 179; [1967] 1 LNS 179; [1967] 2 MLJ 19; and Sandra Margaret Birch v. PP [1977] CLJU 114; [1977] 1 LNS 114; [1978] 1 MLJ 72). The law places upon the prosecution the burden to prove guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and not on the appellant to prove his innocence. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the appellant must rest not on the weakness of the defence but on the strength of the prosecution. This principle is the corner stone of our criminal law.”

Penelitian kepada keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwa Raya menunjukkan bahawa tiada saksi mata berkenaan dengan pembunuhan simati. Ia berdasarkan kepada keterangan sekeliling. Mahkamah ini mendapati hujahan Pendakwa Raya dengan menukilkan kes Sunny Ang v Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 195 dan menyatakan bahawa sabitan terhadap Tertuduh boleh disandarkan kepada keterangan sekeliling. Ia tidak menghalang untuk sabitan dilakukan bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan seperti yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Sunny Ang (supra) tersebut.

Namun demikian wajar sekiranya Mahkamah ini meneliti kes Sunny Ang (supra) tersebut dan dapat dilihat bahawa keadaan keterangan sekeliling yang diambil kira oleh Mahkamah sebelum merumuskan bahawa walaupun mayat simati tidak ditemui dalam kes tersebut, keterangan sekeliling boleh digunakan bagi mensabitkan OKT. Keterangan-keterangan sekeliling dalam kes tersebut adalah seperti yang berikut: “The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was wholly circumstantial. For that reason it is relevant to set out the more important facts and circumstances which the jury were in a position to find, if they decided to do so, from the evidence. These facts and circumstances were as follows:–

The appellant had been made a bankrupt in October 1962 and was still a bankrupt on the 27th August 1963, being the day on which the offence was alleged to have been committed. He was in need of money and that could be a motive for the crime.

On the 27th August 1963 Jenny was insured against accidents with several insurance companies, the total sum being $450,000.

One of the insurance policies under which Jenny was insured for the sum of $150,000 had lapsed on the 26th August 1963 but was renewed by the appellant on the morning of the 27th August 1963 for another five days. The appellant, however, did not renew or extend his own insurance policy which had been taken out at the same time.

Another one of these insurance policies, which was for the sum of $100,000, was due to expire on the 28th August 1963.

The beneficiary named in some of the policies was the appellant's mother. In the case of the other policies the benefit was to go to Jenny's estate.

Jenny, who was 22 years of age and was a bar waitress earning $90 per month and about $10 in tips per day when she worked, made a will on the 7th August 1963 in which the appellant's mother was named as the sole beneficiary. The appellant accompanied Jenny to the solicitor's office when instructions for the preparation of the will were given to the solicitor.

Jenny had only a little experience of what is called scuba diving and might fairly be described as a novice scuba diver. This was known to the appellant, although he claimed that she had made good progress under his tuition.

On the 27th August 1963 the appellant allowed Jenny to go down into the waters near Pulau Dua alone. According to an expert witness, it was not safe for a novice to scuba dive alone.

The waters near Pulau Dua were dangerous and hazardous. The appellant had dived in these waters on previous occasions and was in a position to know this.

The appellant did not go down into the water himself even after Jenny had failed to come to the surface.

Jenny did not wear gloves when she went down into the water. This could be inferred, if the jury decided to do so, from the fact that the two pairs of gloves which had been brought by the appellant on that occasion were still in his swimming-bag. Gloves were usually worn when looking for corals in order to prevent the hands and fingers from being cut. It was of course for the jury to decide whether the gloves produced in court were the very same gloves which were in the appellant's swimming-bag on the 27th August 1963. The jury were in a position to observe that the appellant was unable to explain why there should be two pairs of gloves in the swimming-bag after Jenny had disappeared. It was open to the jury to reach the conclusion that the appellant did not really intend to look for corals that day.

One of the flippers worn by Jenny that day was found on the 3rd September 1963 at a depth of about 45 feet not very far from the place where she had gone into the water. The heel strap was severed and on examination it was found that the strap had been cut in two places by a knife or sharp instrument. There was no direct evidence to show who had cut the strap but it was open to the jury, if they decided to do so, to find that it was the appellant who had cut it. It was stated by an expert witness that if a diver suddenly loses one of his flippers whilst scuba diving, his equilibrium would be upset, his mobility impaired and it might well lead to panic in the case of an inexperienced diver.

The conduct of the appellant after the disappearance of Jenny was described by Yusof and other witnesses. It was open to the jury to find that there was a lack of urgency in the conduct of the appellant at the relevant time.

Less than 24 hours after the disappearance of Jenny, the appellant made formal claims on the three insurance companies which had issued policies covering her against accidents.”

Mahkamah Persekutuan telah merumuskan dalam kes tersebut seperti yang berikut: “In our opinion, these directions are perfectly adequate in a case where the prosecution are relying on circumstantial evidence. There are other grounds of appeal on which the appellant relied and which were discussed during the argument before this court. In our opinion there is no substance in any of them. Although Jenny's body has never been found, there is overwhelming evidence on the record that the appellant murdered her. In our judgment no miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case.”

Sebaliknya, dalam kes ini keterangan-keterangan sekeliling seperti yang telah dinyatakan di perenggan [19] di atas, pada hemat Mahkamah ini tidak boleh menunjukkan bahawa OKT yang terlibat di dalam pembunuhan simati dalam kes ini. Ianya adalah berbeza dengan keadaan sekeliling yang terdapat dalam kes Sunny Ang (supra) tersebut. Apa yang jelas ialah keterangan-keterangan sekeliling tersebut tidak boleh digunakan untuk memintal tali untuk menggantung OKT di dalam kes ini.

Selain daripada itu timbul juga isu berkenaan dengan penerimaan masuk kenyataan yang dikatakan dibuat di bawah seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950. Hujahan pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya kenyataan di bawah seksyen 27 Akta tersebut sepatutnya diterima masuk sebagai sebahagian daripada keterangan terutamanya bagi laporan polis (P44), walaupun Mahkamah telah membuat keputusan bahawa IDD45 iaitu pernyataan bertulis yang dikatakan ditandatangani oleh OKT tidak diterima masuk oleh Mahkamah sebagai keterangan. Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa ia tidak menjadi sebahagian daripada eksibit pendakwaan kerana Mahkamah tidak berpuas hati bahawa IDD45 itu tidak disediakan mengikut prinsip undang-undang yang sepatutnya. Oleh kerana itu apa yang ada sekarang adalah adakah Mahkamah boleh melihat keterangan di bawah P44 itu sebagai keterangan yang boleh diterima masuk di bawah seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950. Mahkamah berpendapat laporan polis yang dikemukakan itu adalah satu maklumat yang diberikan pegawai polis terhadap apakah yang telah dimaklumkan kepada beliau oleh OKT dan dalam laporan polis itu tiada dinyatakan dengan jelas bahawa terjumpanya eksibit-eksibit yang menjadi isu ataupun yang dikemukakan dalam kes ini adalah sebenarnya berpunca hanya daripada OKT semata-mata dan bukannya dari pihak yang lain.

Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa bagi maksud seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950 tersebut maklumat tersebut hendaklah maklumat yang boleh menyebabkan eksibit itu ditemui dan tanpa maklumat tersebut eksibit itu tidak dapat ditemui. Selain daripada itu tiada maklumat awal berkenaan dengan penemuan fakta tersebut. Sebaliknya dalam kes ini keterangan yang dapat diteliti oleh Mahkamah ialah terdapatnya usaha untuk mencari simati dan akhirnya simati telah ditemui. Penemuan tersebut tidak dapat ditunjukan secara langsung berpunca daripada kenyataan OKT dalam kes ini. Oleh yang demikian Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa kenyataan OKT tersebut tidak boleh diterima masuk sebagai keterangan di bawah seksyen 27 Akta Keterangan 1950.

Sementara itu Mahkamah juga mengambil perhatian mengenai gambar-gambar yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah. Pada gambar tersebut terakam OKT telah menunjukkan dengan jarinya kepada tempat-tempat penemuan barang kes tersebut. Timbalan Pendakwa Raya berhujah bahawa gambar-gambar itu dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa sekiranya OKT tidak mempunyai maklumat berkenaan dengan eksibit-eksibit yang ditemui tersebut bagaimana beliau dapat menunjukkan tempat-tempat tersebut.

Sebaliknya, pihak pembelaan menyatakan bahawa ia adalah dibuat atas arahan pihak polis dan beliau telah membuat perkara tersebut. Namun pihak pembelaan tidak mengemukakan laporan polis bagi menyangkal dakwaan Pendakwa Raya bahawa maklumat yang diperolehi serta gambar-gambar tersebut telah dibuat secara sukarela. Mahkamah berpendapat hujahan Pendakwa Raya tidak dapat dipersetujui oleh Mahkamah ini.

Setelah meneliti keseluruhan keterangan Pendakwa Raya, keterangan pembelaan, hujah-hujah kedua-dua pihak dan duluan kehakiman yang dinyatakan di atas bersama-sama dengan analisa Mahkamah terhadap keterangan-keterangan, Mahkamah ini berpendapat Pendakwa Raya gagal membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan yang munasabah. OKT dibebas dan dilepaskan daripada pertuduhan yang dikemukakan terhadap beliau. Bertarikh: 27 hb. Januari 2026 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR Bagi Pihak Pendakwa Raya - TPR Intan Nor Hilwani binti Mat Rifin Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Cawangan Temerloh Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur Peguam Bagi Pihak OKT - Selvi Sandrasegaram dan Ho Zhi Qian