Ezeamama Chijioke Chidi Darlington v Public Prosecutor (B-05(M)-269-06/2017)

On further checking of the appellant’s abdomen, PW4 suspected something was inside the appellant abdomen. When asked by PW4 to bend down, the appellant’s could not do so. The appellant’s abdomen was hard upon touching. The appellant was detained by PW4 and later was Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 3 handed over to Inspector Sherman Jackson Jon Bosco (PW9) for further action.

PW9 then took the appellant to Serdang Hospital. Immediately an x-ray was done and the image showed that there were foreign objects in the appellant’s intestines. The appellant was thus detained in Room 27, Ward 6C of Serdang Hospital from 25.1.2012 until 30.1.2014. During that period of detention, the appellant excreted a total of 61 capsules suspected to contain dangerous drugs.

During that period, there were five sentry officers who witnessed the appellant excreted the capsules as follows:

on 26.1.2012 at 8.45 a.m. witnessed by Detective Sergeant Rusli bin Johar (PW5), the appellant excreted 33 capsules (P15-P16);

on 26.1.2012 at 2.15 p.m. witnessed by Detective Corporal Awang Idris bin Awang Hassan (PW6), the appellant excreted 16 capsules (P17);

on 27.1.2012 at 2.15 a.m. witnessed by PW5 again, the appellant excreted 5 capsules (P18);

on 27.1.2012 at 9.55 p.m. witnessed by Detective Corporal Rosli bin Ibrahim (PW7), the appellant excreted 4 capsules (P19); and Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 4

on 28.1.2012 at 5.35 p.m. witnessed by Detective Corporal Mohd Sazwan bin Abdullah (PW8), the appellant excreted 3 capsules (P20). [6] All 61 capsules were handed over to the investigating officer, Inspector Mohd Firdaus bin Ali (PW10) together with the appellant for further action. [7] The 61 capsules were later sent by PW10 to the Chemist, Dr Vanitha Kunalan (PW3) for analysis. PW3 confirmed that the 61 capsules contained Methamphetamine with a total weight of 515.2 grammes, subject matter of the charge. PW3 also confirmed that Methamphetamine is listed under the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1950 (‘the Act’). [8] At the end of the prosecution’s case, the learned trial judge found that the appellant had exclusive possession of the impugned drugs he swallowed in his stomach. The learned trial judge drew an inference that the appellant had mens rea possession of the drugs found inside his person. [9] As to the element of trafficking, the learned trial judge invoked the statutory presumption under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act based on the weight of the drugs involved. The appellant was thus presumed to have in possession of the impugned drugs for the purposes of trafficking unless he proved otherwise. [10] After being satisfied that all the elements of the charge had been proven against the appellant, the learned trial judge found that the Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 5 prosecution had established a prima facie case. Thus, the learned trial judge ordered the appellant to enter his defence. Based on the evidence on records, we are of the considered view that the learned trial judge was correct in ordering the appellant to enter upon his defence. The Defence Case [11] The appellant elected to give evidence under oath. The appellant was the sole witness for the defence. Essentially, the defence of the appellant was that he was facing a financial difficulty as his father was admitted to the hospital. To settle the hospital bill, he borrowed 1 million Naira from his childhood friend, Obiore. He was unable to pay back 600,000 Naira to Obiore. He and his family was threatened by Obiore and his friends to swallow capsules of gold dust to be taken to Malaysia to be handed over to a person by the name of Emmanuel. The appellant was given USD3,000 by Obiore for that assignment and that his debt is considered to be paid. However, at the KLIA airport he was detained by the police while waiting for a call from Emmanuel. [12] The appellant further testified that he was detained at the Serdang Hospital where he excreted all the capsules he swallowed. There was another person by the name Ejike detained in the same room with him who also excreted a number of capsules. Finally, the appellant denied any knowledge that the capsules contained dangerous drugs. Had he knew about it, he would not swallow them. [13] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge rejected the defence of the appellant as he was guilty of wilful blindness and failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The learned trial judge Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 6 also found that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act on the balance of probabilities. The learned trial judge was satisfied that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the case of trafficking against the appellant as per the charge. [14] The appellant was thus convicted and sentenced to death. Hence, this appeal. The Appeal [15] Although there are nine (9) grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, however learned counsel for the appellant posited only the following two (2) grounds:

that there were doubts as to the identity of the drug exhibits; and

that the learned trial judge failed to consider all the evidence adduced before him. [16] Based on the two grounds, learned counsel submitted that the conviction was not safe. Learned counsel urged this Court to allow the appellant’s appeal and that the appellant be set at liberty.

Identity of drug exhibits [17] On the issue of identity of the drugs, learned counsel’s complaint was in relation to the followings: Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 7

that the search list in respect of 33 capsules marked as R1 – R33 was missing and was not produce in Court during the trial. There was no explanation offered by the prosecution witnesses;

(ii) that the police report (P25) lodged by the sentry (PW5) did not state any markings on the 33 capsules;

(iii) that the chemist (PW3) did not mention about any marking on the 33 capsules in question;

(iv) that the investigating officer (PW10) admitted in his evidence that the marking R1 – R33 was not clearly visible;

that there was time gap in handing over the capsules by PW6 to PW10 and there was no explanation for the delay; and

(vi) that there was possibility of a mixed up of the capsules with the capsules excreted by Ejike. [18] The appellant excreted a total of 61 capsules over a period of between the 26.1.2012 till the 28.1.2012. These capsules were marked by the respective sentries on duty. Learned counsel main complaint was in respect of the first 33 capsules excreted by the appellant on the 26.1.2012 at about 8.45 a.m. The excretion was witnessed by the sentry on duty, PW5. PW5 did lodge a police report (P25) on this almost immediately before handling over the capsules to PW10. The 33 capsules were marked by PW5 as R1 – R33, with also the date and his initial on each of the capsule. Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 8 [19] On the 33 capsules, learned counsel complaints that the search list prepared by PW5 was missing, the markings were not visible, the police report lodged by PW5 did not mention about any marking and that the chemist did not mention at all about any marking on the capsules. We have the opportunity in perusing the appeal records. On the missing search list, this had been explained by PW10 at page 42 of the Appeal Record Volume 2: “P24 dan P25 – ini laporan polis yang dibuat dari pengeluaran pertama dan borang serah terima – dicamkan. Borang bongkar saya ada terima tapi sekarang tidak pasti di mana. ID14 – plastik kuning dibawa oleh SP5. Saya tandakan FR1-FR16. ID14 – P14 P15 – dicamkan 1-15 kapsul. Cam tandatangan saya. P16 – dicamkan, terdapat tandatangan saya. Rujuk para 5 P41 – D/Kpl Awang Idris dikemukakan dan dicamkan. P30 dan P31 – ini laporan polis dan borang serah terima. Borang bongkar ada diserah kepada saya tetapi hari ini tidak nampak. P17(1-16) dan P17 – ini plastik barang kes P17 yang saya terima ada tandaan saya – dicamkan. Rujuk para 6 P41 – P27 – laporan polis. P26 – borang serah terima. Borang bongkar saya terima tapi telah misplace dalam IP. P18 – plastik yang saya terima. Terdapat tandaan saya. Di dalamnya terdapat kapsul yang saya terima. Ada tandatangan saya. P18 dan P18(1-5) – dicamkan.” [20] PW10’s explanation that he had misplaced the search list was reasonable and accepted by the learned trial judge. The witness had identified the 33 capsules from his own markings on the capsules as FR1 Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 9 – FR33 and markings by PW5. The same exhibits had been identified by PW5 and PW3 in Court. [21] The evidence from PW5 clearly stated that he was the sentry on duty when the appellant excreted the 33 capsules and he marked them as R1 – R33, his initials and the date. After lodging a police report, PW5 handed them over to PW10 who subsequently marked them as FR1 – FR33. Thus, the evidence of PW5 regarding the 33 capsules: “Pada jam lebih kurang 08.45 pagi, tangkapan telah memberitahu saya yang dia hendak membuang air besar lalu saya telah membuka gari dan membawanya ke tandas terbuka yang terletak di penjuru bilik. Di situ saya dan anggota telah menyaksikan tangkapan membuang air besar ke dalam plastik pada mangkuk besi dan mengeluarkan ketulan-ketulan berbentuk kapsul melalui dubur bersama najisnya. Setelah selesai saya telah menyuruh tangkapan mencuci kesemua ketulan itu dan kami mengaturnya di atas kaunter sink. Saya telah membuat pengiraan di hadapan tangkapan dan dapati terdapat (33) ketulan kapsul balutan lutsinar disyaki mengandungi dadah. Selepas itu saya telah mengarahkan tangkapan untuk memasukkan kesemua ketulan kapsul itu ke dalam dua beg plastik yang disediakan oleh pihak hospital dan saya bawa tangkapan ke katilnya semula. Semasa di katil tersebut saya telah mengeluarkan satu borang bongkar kepada tangkapan. Saya telah menerangkan dalam Bahasa Inggeris yang mudah difahami tentang kandungan borang bongkar itu sebelum mendapatkan tandatangannya. Setelah permukaan kapsul benar-benar kering saya telah membuat tandaan di atas setiap kapsul tersebut di hadapan tangkapan, di mana saya telah turunkan tandaan R1 hingga R33 beserta tarikh 26/1/2012 dan tandatangan ringkas. Kemudian saya telah masukkan kesemua (33) ketulan kapsul itu semula ke dalam kedua-dua beg plastik hospital yang sama dan menyimpan barang kes dalam beg galas milik saya. Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 10 Pada jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari saya telah menamatkan tugasan dan balik ke Pejabat di IPD Sepang. Sesampainya di pejabat saya telah membuat timbangan ke atas kesemua (33) ketulan kapsul tersebut dan dapati anggaran beratnya adalah 528 gram. Saya timbang menggunakan mesin timbangan yang dibekalkan di Pejabat Narkotik IPD Sepang. Saya tidak tahu samada mesin ini dikaliberasikan atau tidak. Setelah timbangan selesai saya telah membuat laporan polis DABB repot 234/12 bersabit kejadian. Pada jam lebih kurang 2.30 petang saya telah pergi ke pejabat Insp. Mohd Firdaus bin Ali dan menyerahkan barang kes beserta borang bongkar dan borang serah menyerah.” [22] After receiving the 33 capsules from PW5, witness PW10 put his own marking as FR1 – FR33 before putting them together in a yellow plastic package marked as “MF1”. It is true that PW3 in her chemist report (P12) did not mention about any marking on all the 61 capsules, however, in her oral testimony in Court she did mention about the markings. At pages 7 – 8 Appeal Record Volume 2, PW3 said this: “Rujuk muka surat 2 Pernyataan Saksi – tandaan plastik MF1 dan FR1 – FR16. Selain itu terdapat tandaan R1 – R16, tanda tangan dan tarikh 26.1.2012. Tandaan pada plastik B FR17 – FR33. Tandaan lain R17 – R33, tanda tangan dan tarikh 26.1.2012.” [23] Likewise in her witness statement (P9) at pages 39 – 40 Appeal Record Volume 3, PW3 stated: “Saya telah memeriksa sampul surat yang telah diserahkan dan mendapati di dalamnya:

Satu bungkusan plastik berwarna kuning bertanda ‘MF1’ mengandungi ̶ Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 11

Satu plastik specimen HOSPITAL SERDANG bertanda ‘A’ yang berisi sejumlah 16 ketulan berbentuk kapsul yang dibalut dengan beberapa lapisan plastik yang masing-masing diperkuat dengan pita pelekat dan bertanda ‘FR1’ hingga ‘FR16’;

(ii) Satu plastik specimen HOSPITAL SERDANG bertanda ‘B’ yang berisi kapsul yang dibalut dengan beberapa lapisan plastik masing-masing diperkuat dengan pita pelekat dan bertanda ‘FR17’ hingga ‘FR33’. [24] It is clear to us that the markings on the capsules were still intact except a bit faded as stated by the respective witnesses. However, all the capsules had been identified by the witnesses in Court. On the issue of non-tendering of the search list and on the issue of P25, the police report did not mention about the markings on the capsules, we need just to refer to this Court’s earlier decision in Selvam a/l Arjunan v. PP [2012] 4 MLJ 755 where Abdul Malik Ishak JCA had this to say at pages 767 – 768: “[34] Next, learned counsel for the appellant submits that SP2 did not prepare a search list and such failure puts the credibility of SP2 at stake. The value of a search list has been emphasised in the case of Pendakwa Raya lwn Koh Poay Khoon [1993] MLJU 61; [1993] 3 CLJ 223, at p 232. But what Raja Azlan Shah J (as His Majesty then was) said in San Soo Ha v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 34, at p 35 merits reproduction: The most that can be said about the failure to comply with the provision relating to search list is that it may cast doubt upon the bona fides of the parties conducting the search and accordingly afford ground for scrutiny; but if after close scrutiny the court arrives at the conclusion that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused person, it is obviously no defence to say Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 12 that the evidence was obtained in an irregular manner. There is nothing in the law which makes such evidence inadmissible (see Bashir Emperor AIR 1932 All 185; Bhattacharjee Emperor AIR 1940 Cal 85). In the present case the learned president had explored the evidence and came to the conclusion that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the appellant. I am therefore unable to see how the failure to prepare a search list by itself would entitle the appellant to an acquittal. [35] In our judgment, the absence of the search list is not fatal to the prosecution bearing in mind that the appellant was caught red handed with the drugs while riding the Modenas motorcycle alone on that fateful day. [36] In regard to the non-tendering of the police report, we need only to refer to the case of Balachandran v Public Prosecutor, a decision of the Federal Court. There the Federal Court held at p 94 that, ‘Where the evidence of a witness does not require to be corroborated in law there is no obligation to tender corroborative evidence to support his testimony’. Thus, there is no necessity to tender the arrest report in order to corroborate the evidence of SP2.” [25] On the issue of delay in handing over the drug exhibits by PW6 to the investigating officer, even though PW6 finished his duty as the sentry at 5.30 p.m. but he handed over the 16 capsules to PW10 at 11.00 p.m. Learned counsel’s complaint was that there was no explanation for the delay. We observed that the issue of delay was never raised before the learned trial judge. It was raised for the first time before us. [26] Learned counsel referred us to the handing over note (P30) signed between PW6 and PW10 at page 61 Appeal Record Volume 3. It appears to us that the time of handing over written by PW10 was either “11.00” Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 13 hours or “19” hours. As we said earlier this issue was never raised in Court below. PW10 was not cross-examined on the actual time as stated in P30. However, in his evidence, PW6 testified that he handed over the 16 capsules marked as A1 – A16 at or around 8.00 p.m. The evidence of PW6 at pages 59 – 60 of the Appeal Record Volume 3 on this issue were as follows: “Pada jam lebih kurang 2.15 petang, tangkapan telah memberitahu yang dia ingin membuang air besar. Lalu saya bawanya ke tandas di penjuru bilik dan di situ saya dan anggota telah menyaksikan tangkapan mengeluarkan ketulan-ketulan berbentuk kapsul melalui dubur bersama najisnya. Setelah selesai saya telah menyuruh tangkapan mencuci kesemua ketulan itu dan kami mengaturnya di atas kaunter sink. Saya telah membuat kiraan dan dapati terdapat (16) ketulan kapsul balutan lutsinar disyaki mengandungi dadah. D/KPL 118841 Suhaime telah merakam gambar proses ini. Selepas itu saya telah mengarahkan tangkapan untuk memasukkan kesemua ketulan kapsul itu ke dalam beg plastik yang disediakan oleh pihak hospital. Selepas membawa tangkapan semula di katil, saya telah mengeluarkan satu borang bongkar yang mana tangkapan telah tandatangani selepas saya terangkan kandungannya dalam Bahasa Inggeris yang mudah difahami. Kemudian apabila permukaan kapsul kering sepenuhnya saya telah membuat tandaan A1 hingga A16, tarikh 26/1/2012 dan tandatangan saya di atas setiap kapsul. Selepas itu saya masukkan kesemua ketulan kapsul itu semula ke dalam beg plastik hospital yang sama dan simpan barang kes di dalam beg sandang milik saya. Pada jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang saya telah menamatkan tugasan dan balik ke Pejabat di IPD Sepang. Di pejabat saya telah membuat timbangan ke atas kesemua (16) ketulan kapsul tersebut dan dapati anggaran beratnya adalah 300 gram. Saya timbang menggunakan mesin timbangan yang dibekalkan di Pejabat Narkotik IPD Sepang. Setelah selesai saya telah membuat laporan polis DABB repot 240/12 bersabit Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 14 kejadian. Kemudian saya telah serahkan barang kes beserta borang bongkar dan borang serah menyerah kepada Insp. Mohd Firdaus bin Ali di pejabatnya pada jam lebih kurang 8.00 malam.” [27] On the same issue, we disagree with the learned counsel that there was no explanation for the delay. There was a slight delay but it did not cause any prejudice to the appellant. PW6 did offer an explanation when he said at page 60 of the same volume of the Appeal Record: “Sepanjang masa dari rampasan sehingga penyerahan kepada Insp. Mohd Firdaus bin Ali, barang kes yang dirampas dari tangkapan tersebut sentiasa berada dalam jagaan dan kawalan saya. Saya juga tiada menjaga mana-mana tangkapan lain yang disyaki menelan dadah sewaktu menjaga tangkapan ini.” [28] The 16 capsules were produced and identified by PW6 in Court and marked as P17(1-16). PW6 was able to identify the 16 capsules through the markings A1 – A16, his initials and the date 26.1.2012 written by him on each of the 16 capsules using red marker pen.

The Evidence of Ejike [29] On the issue regarding possibility of the capsules been mixed up with that of capsules excreted by Ejike, learned Deputy Public Prosecutor refuted the claim. From the totality of the evidence, we agreed with the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor. We find no evidence to suggest that there was a mixed up in the capsules excreted by the appellant with the capsules excreted by Ejike. Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 15 [30] From the evidence adduced before the learned trial judge, the uncontroverted evidence shows that the appellant and Ejike excreted the capsules at a different time and witnessed by different sentries. There was also different investigating officers and the photographers for the case even though they were put in the same ward room. The table below clearly shows the said differences: PP v EZEAMAMA CHIDI DARLINGTON 45A-176-08/2012 Dates Sentries Number of Capsules Exhibits Number Photographs (P6)

26.01.12 /

8.45 a.m. PW5 : D/Sjn Rusli Johar 33

– (11)

26.01.12 /

2.15 p.m. PW6 : D/Kpl Awang Idris 16

– (15)

27.01.12 /

2.15 a.m. PW5 : D/Sjn Rusli Johar 5

– (19)

27.01.12 /

9.55 p.m. PW7 : D/Kpl Rosli Ibrahim 4

– (23)

28.01.12 /

5.35 p.m. PW8 : D/Kpl Mohd Sazman 3

– (27) Total: 61 capsules – 515.2 gram Meth PW1 : D/Kpl Suhaimen – Photographer PW10 : Insp Mohd Firdaus – Investigating Officer Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 16 PP v EJIKE PAULINUS CHIMEZE 45A-236-10/2012 Dates Sentries Number of Capsules Exhibits Number Photographs (P21)

26.01.12 /

2.45 a.m. PW8 : D/Kpl Mohd Faizal 19

– (4)

26.01.12 /

5.00 a.m. PW8 : D/Kpl Mohd Faizal 16

– (8)

26.01.12 /

10.30 a.m. PW9 : D/Kpl Pannir Chelvam 13

– (12)

26.01.12 /

1.15 p.m. PW9 : D/Kpl Pannir Chelvam 10 P16 (13 – (16)

26.01.12 /

7.25 p.m. PW7 : D/Sjn Mahadzir 4 P18 (17 – 20) Total: 62 capsules – 479.9 gram Meth PW6 : D/Kpl Razaimy – Photographer PW10 : Insp Norhayati – Investigating Officer [31] We did not agree with the learned counsel’s complaint that the learned trial judge had failed to consider the evidence of Ejike. We observed that the learned trial judge had admitted the notes of proceeding involving Ejike as part of the defence case and marked it as D47. The learned trial judge had considered the evidence in Ejike’s case and made the following findings: “22. Bagi menyokong keterangan pembelaannya, Tertuduh telah mengemukakan nota keterangan Ejike dalam kes 45A-236-10/2012 melalui saksi Puan Intan Siti Sabrina Binti Mohd Nadzri, Penolong Kanan Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 17 Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit

Secara ringkas keterangan pembelaan Ejike dalam kes tersebut adalah:

Ejike dan Ezeamama ditempatkan dalam Wad 6C Bilik 27 Hospital Serdang dan 2 anggota polis berada di dalam bilik 27 tersebut tetapi yang mengawal mereka hanya seorang anggota polis sahaja;

Pada 25.1.2012 malam, doktor memberikan mereka ubat. Pada awal pagi 26.1.2012 Ejike terasa hendak membuang air besar lalu membuangnya di dalam beg plastik kuning yang diletak di atas mangkuk tandas. Pada masa itu keluar beberapa ketulan kapsul, polis mengambil gambar dan arahkannya mencuci ketulan kapsul-kapsul tersebut. Selepas membasuh, polis mengambil ketulan kapsul-kapsul tersebut;

Ejike membuang air besar sebanyak 5 kali. Pertama kali selepas tengah malam dia keluarkan 19 ketulan kapsul, diikuti beberapa jam kemudian 16 ketulan kapsul. Waktu pagi 5 kapsul dan sebelah petang 4 kapsul dan kali terakhir pada malamnya sebanyak 4 ketulan kapsul;

Ejike membuang air besar dua kali bersama Ezeamama di dalam tandas. Ejike membuang air besar dulu dalam beg plastik kuning. Setelah itu Ezeamama pula membuang air besar di dalam beg plastik kuning lain. Bentuk ketulan kapsul yang mereka keluarkan melalui pembuangan air besar adalah sama. Kemudian mereka membasuh bersama ketulan kapsul tersebut dan menyusunnya di atas sinki. Seterusnya polis mengambil gambar. Kemudian polis mengarahkan Ejike memegang ketulan kapsul tersebut untuk diambil gambar. Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 18 Selepas gambar diambil polis telah campurkan ketulan Ejike dan Ezeamama, dan disimpan dalam satu beg plastik tanpa tandaan; dan

Ejike menafikan yang ditelannya itu dadah. Sebaliknya Tertuduh hanya mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa ketulan kapsul yang ditelannya adalah ubat muscular.

Pihak pembelaan memutuskan untuk mengemukakan satu isu pembelaan sahaja iaitu ketulan kapsul yang dikeluarkan oleh Tertuduh dengan Ejike Paulinus Chimeze melalui pembuangan air besar telah bercampur satu sama lain. Oleh itu timbul keraguan yang serius ke atas identiti barang kes tersebut. …….

Kedua mereka membuang najis pada waktu yang berlainan; dan

Tertuduh dikawal berganti-ganti sepanjang masa di hospital oleh anggota sentri SP5, SP6, SP7 dan SP8. Manakala Ejike pula dikawal oleh anggota-anggota sentri yang lain. Gambar P6 (10), P6 (14), P6 (18), P6

Pada peringkat kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah telah berpuas hati dan membuat suatu dapatan fakta bahawa tiada percampuran ketulan kapsul yang dikeluarkan oleh Tertuduh dengan seorang lagi bernama Ejike berdasarkan alasan-alasan berikut:

dan P6 (26) yang menunjukkan Tertuduh sedang menadah ketulan kapsul yang dikeluarkannya melalui pembuangan najis sejumlah (61) ketulan telah gagal disangkal. Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 19

Pengakuan tertuduh semasa disoalbalas oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya bahawa tertuduh menelan (61) ketulan kapsul sekaligus mengesahkan ketulan kapsul P15 (1-16), P16 (1-17), P17 (1-16), P18 (1-5) dan P19 (1-4) adalah yang dikeluarkannya melalui pembuangan najis. Tertuduh juga gagal menjelaskan kenapa jumlah (61) ketulan kapsul tersebut konsisten dengan gambar P6 yang menunjukkan jumlah yang sama. Jika berlaku percampuran ketulan kapsul dengan seorang bernama Ejike sudah pastinya jumlahnya samada berlebih atau berkurang. Oleh itu pembelaan Tertuduh bahawa berlaku percampuran tersebut langsung tidak berasas.” [32] We are mindful of the trite law that the integrity of the corpus delecti cannot be compromised. The law requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs seized were the same drugs sent to the chemist for analysis and eventually produced and identified by the witnesses in Court. Affirmative evidence is required to dispel any lingering or remaining reasonable doubt on the identity of the drugs exhibits (see: Lim Pah Soon v. PP [2013] 8 CLJ 800). This does not happen in the present appeal before us. We find there is no doubt as to the identity of the exhibits and there was no break in the chain of evidence as to the drug exhibits which warranted an appellate intervention. Conclusion [33] Having regard to the factual matrix of this case, we were of the view that the conviction against the appellant was safe. In the circumstances, we unanimously dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence of the High Court was affirmed. Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-269-06/2017 20 Dated: 7 January 2020. signed (KAMARDIN BIN HASHIM) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Counsel for the Appellant: Tam Teck Yew Messrs. Chan Tse Yuen & Co Petaling Jaya Counsel for the Respondent: