Lal Khan v Pendakwa Raya (B-05(M)-158-04/2017)

Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA [BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN] RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 ANTARA LAL KHAN … PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. 45A-130-11/2015 Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan Lal Khan] KORAM: AHMADI HAJI ASNAWI, HMR ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, HMR KAMARDIN HASHIM, HMR PENGHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH [1] Ini adalah rayuan Perayu, seorang warganegara Pakistan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman mati yang dijatuhkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 2 Shah Alam (‘hakim bicara’) atas dua kesalahan memperedarkan dadah berbahaya di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya, 1952 (‘Akta’). [2] Butir-butir dua pertuduhan terhadap Perayu adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama (P3) Bahawa kamu pada 31 Mei 2014, jam lebih kurang 1.30 tengahari di Kawasan Ketibaan Antarabangsa, Aras 3, MTB KLIA, Sepang, di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu 753.3 gram Methamphetamine dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama. Pertuduhan Kedua (P4) Bahawa kamu pada 31 Mei 2014, jam lebih kurang 1.30 tengahari di Kawasan Ketibaan Antarabangsa, Aras 3, MTB KLIA, Sepang, di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu 637.9 gram Heroin dan 48.1 gram Monoacetylmorphines dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama. [3] Kami telah mendengar rayuan Perayu pada 27.11.2018. Selepas mendengar pihak-pihak, kami telah menolak rayuan Perayu dan mengesahkan sabitan serta hukuman hakim bicara atas kedua-dua pertuduhan. Kami sekarang memberikan alasan penolakan rayuan Perayu. Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 3 Kes Pendakwaan [4] Fakta kes pihak pendakwaan secara ringkasnya adalah seperti berikut. Pada 31.5.2014 jam lebih kurang 1.30 tengah hari, Inspektor Kenneth Khanna a/l Amalanathan (SP1) ketika sedang menjalankan tugas pemantauan di Kawasan Balai Ketibaan Antarabangsa, KLIA, telah melihat Perayu berjalan melepasi SP1 sambil membawa sebuah beg galas dan sebuah lagi beg ditarik di tangan kiri menuju ke arah mesin pengimbas. SP1 menghampiri Perayu dan memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai pegawai kanan polis. SP1 meminta Perayu menunjukkan pasportnya dan mendapati nama Perayu ialah Lal Khan. SP1 terus mengarahkan Perayu supaya mengimbas kedua-dua buah beg yang dibawanya. [5] Hasil imbasan kedua-dua beg tidak menunjukkan sebarang imej yang mencurigakan. SP1 kemudian membawa Perayu ke Pejabat Narkotik di Tingkat 3 untuk pemeriksaan lanjut. Di Pejabat Narkotik, SP1 membuat pemeriksaan secara fizikal ke atas tubuh badan Perayu dan telah menemui dua paket plastik lut sinar (P26 dan P27) berbungkus dengan pita pelekat dan diikat dengan tali kain berwarna putih di bahagian pinggang sebelah kiri dan kanan Perayu sebagaimana kelihatan di gambar P31 (1-7). SP1 mendapati setiap paket plastik lut sinar tersebut berisi bahan disyaki dadah berbahaya. [6] Perayu telah ditangkap dan kemudiannya telah diserahkan oleh SP1 kepada pegawai penyiasat, Inspektor Amrin Bin Mohamad Arif (SP6) bersama dengan barang-barang kes yang dirampas. [7] Pada 3.6.2014 jam 12.02 tengah hari, SP6 telah menyerahkan barang kes P26 dan P27 kepada ahli kimia, Dr. Vanitha Kunalan (SP3) Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 4 untuk dianalisis. Hasil analisis yang dijalankan, SP3 mengesahkan bahan ketulan dan serbuk dalam P27 yang ditandakan oleh SP6 sebagai ‘AA2’ mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Heroin seberat 637.9 gram dan dadah berbahaya jenis Monoacetylmorphines seberat 48.1 gram, hal perkara pertuduhan kedua. SP3 juga mengesahkan bahan kristal jernih yang terdapat dalam P26, yang ditandakan oleh SP6 sebagai ‘AA1’ mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 753.3 gram, hal perkara pertuduhan pertama. SP3 turut mengesahkan Heroin, Monoacetylmorphines dan Methamphetamine tersenarai bawah Jadual Pertama, Akta. SP3 telah menyediakan satu laporan kimia dan ditandakan sebagai P44. Dapatan hakim bicara di akhir kes pendakwaan [8] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, hakim bicara telah berpuas hati atas penilaian maksimum bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap Perayu atas kedua-dua pertuduhan. Hakim bicara menerima keterangan SP3 yang langsung tidak dicabar mengenai analisis yang dijalankan. Hakim bicara membuat inferen yang munasabah bahawa Perayu dibuktikan mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah yang dipertuduhkan berdasarkan kepada fakta bungkusan-bungkusan dadah dilekat dan diikat kepada pinggang Perayu. Hakim bicara juga berpuas hati elemen pengedaran telah dibuktikan melalui fakta bahawa Perayu telah membawa dadah-dadah yang dipertuduhkan dari Pakistan ke Malaysia. Dengan itu, Perayu telah diperintah untuk membela dirinya atas kedua-dua pertuduhan. Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 5 Pembelaan Perayu [9] Perayu memilih memberi keterangan membela diri secara bersumpah. Dalam keterangannya, Perayu menyatakan:

20. It is trite that “the concept of wilful blindness qualifies the requirement of knowledge”, as held in the case of Public Prosecutor v Hla Win [1995] 2 SLR 424. In this case, this Court ruled the defence of innocent carrier could not prevail since the Accused was guilty of simply ignoring the matter which is obvious, as the Accused did not inspect the packets before tying them to his waist. It is something very unusual to tie the items on to his body to conceal such items if the Accused has no knowledge that they were illegal or unlawful items. This act has the direct bearing to his knowledge of the drugs and he was doing it at his will and putting his own life at stake. Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 8

21. In the case of Marlan Marpaung v PP [2012] 8 CLJ 41, it was ruled as follows: “The defence of the appellant cannot stand in isolation. It must be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances prevailing in each particular case (Ridwan v. PP [2010] 4 CLJ 570; Hoh Bon Tong v. PP [2010] 5 CLJ 240; and Wong Vui Chin v. PP [2011] 3 CLJ 383). In our judgment, the appellant could not avail himself of the defence of innocent carrier because there was ample evidence to show that the appellant had knowledge of the drugs that he was carrying. The contemporaneous conduct of the appellant by fleeing the scene and putting up a struggle with the police party before the discovery of the drugs would have a direct bearing on the facts in issue and would have certainly damaged or whittled away the presumption of innocence on the part of the appellant. A reasonable tribunal appraised of the facts and after hearing this appeal would have concluded that the appellant was not an innocent carrier and that the appellant knew that he was carrying the drugs in the black plastic bag (exh. “P24”) for the purpose of trafficking.” (Emphasis added)

22. This Court affirmed its findings at the end of Prosecution’s case based on the evidence that the Accused had knowledge of the contents of the packets he was carrying from Pakistan to Malaysia which he chose to tie the packets in an unusual manner instead of keeping them inside his bag. There was no plausible explanation by Accused for ignoring the opportunity to inspect the packets in the toilet before tying them on to his waist, thus disqualifying the applicability of such defence. Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 9 Whether Rehman and Rashid exist?

23. Besides, the Accused testified that he met Rehman for about 4 – 5 times but he did not have handphone number of Rehman. As for Rashid, the Accused contended that he met Rashid (Rehman’s friend) for the first and the only time at Lahore Airport.

24. This Court found from the evidence that “Rehman and Rashid” were mere fictitious characters whereby in this respect there had been lack of disclosure of the information from the Accused as to how to contact or trace them. It is unreasonable for the Accused not to have Rehman’s contact number as he had befriended him for quite a while.

25. In the case of Pius Emmanuel David v Public Prosecutor [2016] 1 MLJ 233, Aziah Ali JCA (as she then was) had said: “[42] It was further submitted that PW5 had failed to investigate ‘Jeff’ that was mentioned by the appellant in his cautioned statement exh D1. Learned counsel submitted that the IO ought to have examined the two handphone sim cards recovered from the appellant. We have perused the statement exh D1. Apart from giving the full name of Jeff, no further details were provided about Jeff. The appellant did not inform PW5 about any telephone number or address of Jeff. There is no evidence that the appellant had mentioned ‘Jeff’ to PW3 at the time he was arrested. He only mentioned ‘Jeff’ in exh D1 which was recorded about three days after his arrest. If it is true that ‘Jeff’ existed, the appellant could have and should have given Jeff’s telephone number to either PW3 or PW5 at the first available opportunity. We find that the appellant’s defence lacked credible evidence that Jeff existed. The appellant’s failure to provide relevant information about ‘Jeff’ for the police to carry out a Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 10 thorough investigation into the probability of his defence, entitled the learned trial judge to disbelieve him (Teng Howe Sing v Public Prosecutor [2009] 3 MLJ 46; [2009] 3 CLJ 733). The trial judge has not erred in finding that the defence is an afterthought. By making this finding, we find that the trial judge has sufficiently met the requirement of the Radhi’s direction.” (Emphasis added)

26. This Court found the existence of Rehman and Rashid is not probable. It is not possible to accept the story of the Accused when he claimed that he did not have Rehman’s phone number as the Accused alleged that they were closed. How is the Accused going to contact Rehman to deliver the “Selajeet” passed to him by Rashid? Who is this Rashid? A fictitious character no doubt. This had negated the defence to be highly improbable and I ruled that Rehman and Rashid do not exist.” [12] Oleh yang demikian Perayu telah disabitkan dan dihukum gantung di leher sehingga mati oleh hakim bicara. Justeru rayuan Perayu di hadapan kami. Rayuan Perayu [13] Walaupun peguam bela telah membangkitkan 20 isu atau alasan rayuan dalam Petisyen Rayuan yang telah difailkan, namum di hadapan kami peguam bela hanya menghujahkan 4 isu berikut:

(2) When documents are put in for the purpose of formal proof it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much thereof as appears necessary.” [19] Walaupun khidmat jurubahasa merupakan satu kewajipan di bawah seksyen 270 KTJ dalam keadaan apabila seseorang tertuduh hadir bersendirian tanpa peguam bela, namun dalam perbicaraan terhadap Perayu, khidmat jurubahasa Urdu telah dibekalkan sungguhpun Perayu telah diwakili oleh seorang peguam bela (lihat muka surat 1 – 2, Rekod Rayuan (RR), Jilid 2). Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 13 [20] Bantahan peguam bela terpelajar ialah bahawa hak Perayu untuk mendapat khidmat jurubahasa Pakistan semasa ditahan dan semasa tempoh penyiasatan telah dicabuli apabila khidmat jurubahasa tidak dibekalkan kepadanya. Peguam bela berhujah bahawa Perayu tidak memahami Bahasa Melayu dan Bahasa Inggeris semasa ditahan dan disiasat. Peguam bela telah merujuk kepada keterangan SP6 di muka surat 56 dan 57, RR, Jilid 2 seperti berikut: “S: OKT tidak dapat berbahasa Ingeris dan bahasa Malaysia semasa ditangkap? Setuju. S: Kamu ada ambil rakaman pecakapan? Ada. S:

Menurut anak guam saya, tidak ada jurubahasa dibekalkan semasa rakaman percakapan diambil? Tidak setuju. (PB tunjukkan rakaman percakapan hanya berkenaan jurubahasa sahaja. Saksi semak IP daripada TPR). Tidak ada rekod jurubahasa digunakan dalam rakaman percakapan OKT.” [21] Bantahan peguam bela lebih tertumpu kepada ketiadaan khidmat jurubahasa semasa Perayu ditangkap semasa penyiasatan. Kami telah merujuk keterangan SP1 mengenai insiden berlakunya tangkapan terhadap Perayu. SP1 menyatakan bahawa beliau telah menjelaskan kepada Perayu Senarai Bongkar (P11) dalam Bahasa Inggeris yang mudah (simple English). Menurut SP1, Perayu telah mengecop ibu jarinya Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 14 atas P11 menandakan Perayu memahami apa yang dijelaskan kepadanya oleh SP1. Oleh yang demikian tidak ada timbul sebarang isu bahawa Perayu tidak memahami Bahasa Malaysia seperti dibangkitkan oleh peguam bela terpelajar. SP1 telah memberikan penjelasan dalam Bahasa Inggeris yang mudah dan telahpun difahami oleh Perayu dengan menurunkan cop ibu jarinya atas P11. [22] Kami telah meneliti keterangan pembelaan Perayu yang menyatakan antara lain bahawa dia telah mula datang dan bekerja di Malaysia sejak tahun 2008. Dia bekerja sebagai tukang jahit dan juga bekerja sambilan sebagai pemotong rumput. Menurut keterangan SP6, Perayu telah menyebut penglibatan penama Rehman dan Rashid semasa siasatan dijalankan. Oleh yang demikian kami tidak mendapati sebarang prejudis mahupun sebarang kegagalan keadilan kepada Perayu walaupun khidmat jurubahasa Pakistan tidak dibekalkan kepadanya semasa tangkapan dan siasatan dilakukan. Kami bersetuju dengan dapatan hakim bicara mengenai isu ini seperti di muka surat 16 – 17, RR, Jilid 1: “16. This Court found the issue of non-availability of the Pakistan interpreter as unreasonable excuse by the Accused to claim he was deprived of fairness and to allege that he could not communicate with the officers about his innocence because as a matter of fact he could have understood some basics of local language especially Bahasa Melayu after almost 10 years staying and working in Malaysia.

16.1 Furthermore, this Court observed that the Acused could understand and communicate in Bahasa Melayu in the course of this trial and there is evidence to show that the Accused did provide the names of the two persons i.e. Rehman and Rashid to the police. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Accused Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 15 actually understood the language spoken to him during the recording of his statements; and

16.2 In this context, this Court ruled that there is no merit on the contention about non-compliance of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. This Court is of the view that there was no occurrence of miscarriage of justice as there was no necessity to provide a Pakistan Interpreter for the Accused in the circumtances of this case and it does not fall within the ambit of section 270 of Criminal Procedure Code. Also, it is not related to the issue of admissibility of his statements under section 37A, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the non-calling of the Recording Officer of the said statements does not trigger the adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.” [23] Sebagai panduan, kami merujuk kepada sebuah kes yang telah diputuskan di Singapura mengenai isu yang sama, Mat Repin bin Mamat v. Public Prosecutor [1994] 1 SLR(R) 175, Penghakiman M. Kartigesu JA di muka surat 178, seperti berikut: “12 On the question of interpreters, the relevant provision is to be found in s 209(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (“CPC”) which reads as follows: Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused and he is present in person, it shall be interpreted to him forthwith in a language which he understands. 13 Section 209 and other provisions in the CPC as to interpreters are statutory safeguards to ensure that an accused is substantially able to comprehend the proceedings to enable him to best present his defence. The ability to understand the prosecution case against him will allow him Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 16 to decide whether to give evidence himself, whether to call witnesses on his behalf or whether to instruct his counsel to rebut any particular piece of evidence given by the Prosecution. 14 However, to that a caveat must be added. Notwithstanding that there has been non-compliance with s 209(1) or any provision requiring the accused’s comprehension of the proceedings, an appellate court will only interfere if the accused has been prejudiced such that there has been a failure of justice. Mere irregularities which do not result in the accused being prejudiced in his defence are defects which can be cured by s 396 of the CPC.” [24] Kami mendapati tiada sebarang merit dalam bantahan peguam bela terpelajar di hadapan kami mengenai isu berkaitan ketiadaan khidmat jurubahasa Pakistan semasa tangkapan dan siasatan dilakukan terhadap Perayu. Oleh yang demikian, tidak timbul sebarang pencabulan terhadap hak samarata Perayu di bawah Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Penghakiman kami bahawa sebarang kecacatan berkaitan khidmat jurubahasa yang dibangkitkan oleh peguam bela dalam kes ini dapat ditampung (curable) melalui seksyen 422 KTJ yang memperuntukkan: “422. Subject to the provisions contained in this Chapter no finding, sentence or order passed or made by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on account of ̶ ̶

19. “Doctrine of Wilful Blindness This Court found as a fact that the manner the Accused hide and concealed the packets had been very suspicious because if they were only medicines he could have kept them inside the bags that would not be having any problem at the scanning machines.

20. It is trite that “the concept of wilful blindness qualifies the requirement of knowledge”, as held in the case of Public Prosecutor v Hla Win [1995] 2 SLR 424. In this case, this Court ruled the defence of innocent carrier could not prevail since the Accused was guilty of simply ignoring the matter which is obvious, as the Accused did not inspect the packets before tying them to his waist. It is something very unusual to tie the items on to his body to conceal such items if the Accused has no knowledge that they were illegal or unlawful items. This act has the direct bearing to his knowledge of the drugs and he was doing it at his will and putting his own life at stake. Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 21

21. In the case of Marlan Marpaung v PP [2012] 8 CLJ 41, it was ruled as follows: “The defence of the appellant cannot stand in isolation. It must be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances prevailing in each particular case (Ridwan v. PP [2010] 4 CLJ 570; Hoh Bon Tong v. PP [2010] 5 CLJ 240; and Wong Vui Chin v. PP [2011] 3 CLJ 383). In our judgment, the appellant could not avail himself of the defence of innocent carrier because there was ample evidence to show that the appellant had knowledge of the drugs that he was carrying. The contemporaneous conduct of the appellant by fleeing the scene and putting up a struggle with the police party before the discovery of the drugs would have a direct bearing on the facts in issue and would have certainly damaged or whittled away the presumption of innocence on the part of the appellant. A reasonable tribunal appraised of the facts and after hearing this appeal would have concluded that the appellant was not an innocent carrier and that the appellant knew that he was carrying the drugs in the black plastic bag (exh. “P24”) for the purpose of trafficking.” (Emphasis added)

22. This Court affirmed its findings at the end of Prosecution’s case based on the evidence that the Accused had knowledge of the contents of the packets he was carrying from Pakistan to Malaysia which he chose to tie the packets in an unusual manner instead of keeping them inside his bag. There was no plausible explanation by Accused for ignoring the opportunity to inspect the packets in the toilet before tying them on to his waist, thus disqualifying the applicability of such defence.” Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 22 [33] Atas isu yang sama, kami hanya perlu merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes PP v. Herlina Purnama Sari [2017] 1 MLRA 499 seperti berikut: [48] In the present case, based on the evidence, it is our view that the respondent is not an innocent carrier but a trafficker. As we have alluded to earlier, in essence the defence of innocent carrier raised by the respondent has no merit because the respondent had every opportunity to check for herself what she was carrying. In our judgment, any reasonable person similarly circumstanced would have asked what were in those boxes. The respondent here is not a hapless victim caught in the web of inevitable circumstances beyond her control. We find no ring of truth in her story. [34] Kami tidak mendapati wujud sebarang kekhilafan dalam dapatan dan keputusan hakim bicara atas semua isu yang timbul dan dihujahkan oleh peguam bela terpelajar di hadapan kami. Kesimpulan [35] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang kami huraikan di atas, kami dengan sebulat suara mendapati sabitan terhadap Perayu atas kedua-dua pertuduhan adalah selamat dan disokong oleh keterangan yang kredibel dan mencukupi. Kami juga mendapati tiada sebarang merit dalam rayuan Perayu. Oleh itu rayuan Perayu ditolak. Sabitan dan hukuman Mahkamah Tinggi disahkan dan dikekalkan. Bertarikh: 21 Disember 2018 t.t. (KAMARDIN BIN HASHIM) Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-158-04/2017 23 Peguam Cara Bagi Pihak Perayu: Jayamurugan a/l Vadivelu Muhammad Saifullah, bersamanya Tetuan Jayamurugan Vadivelu & Partners No. 6-3, 2nd Floor Jalan PJS 6/5F Desa Mentari 46150 Petaling Jaya Selangor Bagi Pihak Responden: Muhammad Azmi bin Mashud Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Bahagian Rayuan dan Perbicaraan Jabatan Peguam Negara Putrajaya