Pendakwa Raya v Ramli Bin Siwang Hamzah (CB-42LB-2-07/2024)

Ini adalah rayuan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah membebas dan melepaskan Responden di akhir kes pembelaan. Responden telah dituduh seperti yang berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 28hb Disember 2022 jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang di tandas pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah, di dalam Daerah Temerloh, di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, telah didapati menggunakan dadah berbahaya jenis Morphine ke dalam tubuh kamu dengan cara menyalahi undang-undang. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Dan bahawa kamu sebelum melakukan kesalahan seperti di atas telah disabitkan dengan dua (2) sabitan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen yang sama dan pernah juga dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39C (1) Akta yang sama. Oleh yang demikian, kamu boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39C(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama Seksyen 38B(1) Akta yang sama."

Responden sepanjang perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen tidak diwakili peguam. Kes dikendalikan sendiri olehnya. Pendakwa Raya telah mengemukakan lima orang saksi sebelum menutup kes di akhir kes pendakwaan.

Di akhir kes pendakwaan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah memutuskan Pendakwa Raya berjaya menunjukkan satu kes prima facie dan memanggil Responden membela diri.

Pada peringkat pembelaan, Responden telah memberi keterangan dari kandang saksi dan diperiksa balas oleh Pendakwa Raya. Responden tidak mengemukakan saksi lain.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah memutuskan bahawa setelah meneliti pembelaan Responden, telah berpuas hati bahawa keraguan yang munasabah telah berjaya dibangkitkan oleh Responden terhadap kes pendakwaan.

Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap Mahkamah Rayuan tidak akan campur tangan dapatan hakim bicara. Ini adalah disebabkan hakim bicara mempunyai keistimewaan untuk menatap wajah dan melihat tingkah laku saksi-saksi semasa memberi keterangan di Mahkamah.

Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan akan hanya campur tangan dalam dapatan hakim bicara sekiranya terdapat petanda bahawa hakim bicara gagal menggunakan keistimewaan melihat saksi-saksi sehingga terjerumus kepada dapatan yang tidak berdasarkan kepada prinsip undang-undang. Campur tangan juga boleh dilakukan sekiranya hakim 4 bicara membuat dapatan yang bercanggah dengan prinsip undang-undang. Ia dikenali sebagai kesilapan yang ketara atau kegagalan melakukan penilaian yang sewajarnya. Ini telah dinyatakan dengan jelas dan menjadi undang-undang yang mantap berkaitan dengan rayuan melalui keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309 seperti berikut: “In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention ie, to determine whether or not the trial court had arrived at its decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the trial court. Clearly, the phrase "insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence" merely related to such a process. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal's restatement that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. The Court of Appeal further reiterated the principle central to appellate intervention ie, that a decision arrived at by a trial court without judicial appreciation of the evidence might be set aside on appeal. This is consistent with the established plainly wrong test.”

Penelitian Mahkamah ini mendapati Responden tidak diwakili peguam sepanjang perbicaraan. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada seksyen 257 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ) yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “257 Case for prosecution to be explained by Court to undefended accused

At every trial before the Court of a Magistrate if and when the Court calls upon the accused for his defence it shall, if he is not represented by an advocate, inform him of his right to give evidence on his own behalf, and if he elects to give evidence on his own behalf shall call his attention to the principal points in the evidence for the prosecution which tell against him in order that he may have an opportunity of explaining them.

The failure at any trial of any accused to give evidence shall not be made the subject of adverse criticism by the prosecution.” [9] Mahkamah dalam kes Awaluddin Suratman & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [1991] 2 CLJ Reprint 310 telah menjelaskan berkenaan dengan kepentingan untuk pemakaian seksyen 257 KPJ terhadap Tertuduh tidak diwakili semasa perbicaraan. YA Hakim Mohtar Abdullah menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “It is also a salutary practice for a trial Judge to explain to an undefended accused the main points of a prosecution witness' testimony so as to enable the said accused to properly cross-examine such witness. The record again does not show this to be done!” [10] Ia juga dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Lokhman Abu v. PP [2001] 1 CLJ 253 seperti yang berikut: “We have examined the record in the present case with much anxiety. We are in agreement with Mr. Karpal Singh that there was a clear breach of s. 257(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We are also in agreement with him that the way in which the cautioned statement was introduced was unsatisfactory. In our judgment, in a case where an accused is unrepresented, it is desirable in the interests of justice, when a cautioned statement is sought to be introduced in evidence, for the court at that stage to ascertain from the accused whether he accepts that it was made voluntarily. If he does not, then the court should proceed to conduct a trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of the statement in accordance with settled principles.” [11] Walau bagaimanapun Mahkamah perlu menimbangkan kesan kepada ketidakpatuhan seksyen 257 KPJ tersebut dan perlu menimbangkannya sama ada ketidakpatuhan tersebut menimbulkan ketidakadilan atau prejudis kepada Tertuduh. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Shaari v Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 MLJ 22 oleh YA Hakim Azmi seperti yang berikut: “I would, therefore, although section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code did appear at first sight to be mandatory by reason of the words “ shall call his attention”, I would say that having regard to what had taken place subsequent to that the accused had not been prejudiced in his defence and would, therefore, say that in the present case the failure by the Magistrate to comply with the provision of the section had not occasioned any prejudice or a reasonable probability of prejudice but is an omission curable under section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” [12] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Mahkamah mendapati bahawa telah dinyatakan di perenggan 7 berkenaan dengan pematuhan seksyen 257 KPJ seperti yang berikut: “7. Oleh kerana OKT tidak diwakili, saya telah mematuhi seksyen 257 dan 258 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah bagi menerangkan kes pendakwaan dan prosedur yang berkaitan kepada OKT.” [13] Mahkamah ini meneliti nota keterangan terutamanya di akhir kes pendakwaan setelah saksi akhir memberikan keterangan iaitu SP 5. Ia dapat dilihat di muka surat 38 hingga 42 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 yang tiada menunjukkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menerangkan kes pendakwaan kepada Responden/Tertuduh seperti yang dikehendaki di bawah seksyen 257 KPJ tersebut. [14] Pada hemat Mahkamah adalah mustahak untuk setiap tindakan atau langkah yang dilakukan oleh hakim, pendakwa raya dan peguam Responden/Tertuduh dicatatkan di dalam nota prosiding. Mahkamah yang merupakan mahkamah rekod (court of record) tidak wajar meninggalkan sebarang catatan di dalam nota prosiding dan menyatakan ia telah dilakukan sedangkan tiada catatan yang sedemikian di dalam nota prosiding. Kini dengan penggunaan Sistem Court Recording & Video-To-Text (RVT) akan memudahkan segala tindakan yang berlaku di dalam sesuatu prosiding dapat direkodkan secara elektronik. Oleh itu tiada alasan untuk sebarang kelompangan dalam nota prosiding bagi menunjukkan apakah yang sebenarnya berlaku dalam sesuatu prosiding. Adalah tidak wajar untuk hakim bicara menyatakan sesuatu perkara yang tidak dicatatkan di dalam nota prosiding bagi menyokong apa-apa dapatan atau keputusan yang dibuat oleh hakim bicara. Ini adalah penting bagi memastikan ketelusan yang maksimum berlaku semasa sesuatu prosiding sedang berjalan. Ia juga dapat mengelakkan sebarang prasangka dan tohmahan bahawa ada keterangan yang ingin dilindungi daripada tercatat atau terakam semasa perbicaraan. Oleh itu dalam kes ini Mahkamah berpendapat tiada pematuhan kepada seksyen 257 KPJ dapat dikesan dengan hanya berdasarkan kepada penyataan di dalam alasan penghakiman hakim bicara tanpa tercatat di dalam nota prosiding. [15] Persoalan seterusnya ialah adakah dengan ketidakpatuhan seksyen 257 KPJ itu menyebabkan Mahkamah perlu campur tangan dalam keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam kes ini. [16] Bagi menjawab persoalan itu Mahkamah perlu melihat sama ada ketidakpatuhan tersebut telah menimbulkan prejudis kepada Responden. Dalam kes ini Mahkamah berpendapat tujuan seksyen 257 KPJ adalah untuk melindungi kepentingan Tertuduh yang ianya tidak dapat ditunjukkan ketidakpatuhannya telah menjejaskan dan memprejudiskan Responden dalam kes ini. [17] Mahkamah juga dalam kes ini perlu meneliti kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah menggunakan seksyen 256 KPJ. Ia dilakukan dengan tindakan hakim bicara meminta supaya Responden menulis nama dan menurunkan tandatangan, menulis nombor kad pengenalan serta menulis tarikh pada satu helai kertas yang ditandakan sebagai D16. [18] Semasa meneliti eksibit D16 tersebut Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membuat dapatan seperti yang berikut: “…

OKT mendakwa tidak pandai membaca dan menulis. Bagi menguji kebenaran ini, saya telah meminta OKT untuk menurunkan tandatangan, menulis nama, nombor kad pengenalan dan tarikh ke atas sehelai kertas putih bersaiz A4 yang kemudiannya ditandakan sebagai D16. OKT telah mematuhi permintaan saya secara spontan tanps berfikir panjang. Saya percaya, OKT tidak tahu tujuan saya meminta beliau berbuat demikian.

Daripada ekshibit D16 tersebut, saya mendapati OKT mampu menulis nama beliau, menurunkan tandatangan, menulis nombor kad pengenalan beliau dan menulis tarikh. Walau bagaimanapun, tulisan beliau tidaklah begitu kemas.

Semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh TPR terpelajar, TPR mencadangkan bahawa OKT sememangnya boleh menurunkan tandatangan tetapi tandatangannya berubah-ubah, dan OKT bersetuju dengan cadangan tersebut.

Pada peringkat ini, sekali lagi saya meminta untuk OKT menurunkan 3 contoh tandatangan ke atas sehelai kertas putih bersaiz A4 yang kemudiannya ditandai sebagai D17. Saya percaya OKT juga tidak tahu tujuan saya meminta beliau berbuat demikian, tetapi dipatuhi oleh OKT secara spontan.

Jika diteliti contoh tandatangan OKT dalam D16 dan D17, bentuk tandatangan adalah hampir sama dan konsisten. Saya percaya tandatangan OKT itu merupakan tulisan nama beliau yang dijadikan sebagai tandatangan di mana huruf R jelas kelihatan di hadapan.

Contoh tandatangan OKT di D16 dan D17 adalah terlalu jauh bezanya dengan tandatangan Akuan Pemberi di P6 dan tandatangan Orang Yang Diperiksa yang boleh dilihat di P4B. Sebaliknya, tandatangan Akuan Pemberi di P6 dan tandatangan Orang Yang Diperiksa di P4B adalah serupa.

Semasa menyoal balas OKT di peringkat pembelaan, TPR terpelajar tidak pernah meminta pengesahan daripada OKT sama ada tandatangan yang terdapat pada bahagian Akuan Pemberi di P6 dan tandatangan Orang Yang Diperiksa di P4B adalah tandatangan OKT.

Semasa sesi pemeriksaan semula, saya telah meminta pengesahan OKT berkenaan dengan perkara tersebut dan OKT dengan tegasnya menafikan tandatangan di P6 dan P4B adalah kepunyaannya.

Di sini terdapat 2 fakta yang bercanggah di mana SP2 menyatakan bahawa tandatangan Akuan Pemberi di P6 dan tandatangan Orang Yang Diperiksa di P4B adalah kepunyaan OKT. Sebaliknya, OKT menafikannya dan telah memberikan 4 contoh tandatangan sebagaimana dalam D16 dan D17.

Pihak pendakwaan gagal untuk mengemukakan apa-apa keterangan bebas yang lain bagi mengesahkan atau menyokong keterangan SP2 yang sememangnya OKT-lah yang telah menurunkan tandatangan pada Akuan Pemberi di P6 dan tandatangan Orang Yang Diperiksa di P4B. Pihak pendakwaan juga gagal menunjukkan kepada Mahkamah contoh tandatangan OKT pada dokumen-dokumen yang lain yang serupa dengan bentuk tandatangan dalam P6 dan P4B tersebut. Justeru itu, apabila terdapat 2 versi yang bertentangan, undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa versi yang memihak kepada OKT hendaklah diterima oleh Mahkamah.” [19] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada seksyen 256 KPJ yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “256 Court may put questions to accused

For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may at any stage of a trial, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary.

For the purpose of this section the accused shall not be sworn and he shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer the questions or by giving false answers to them, but the Court may draw such inference from the refusal or answers as it thinks just.

The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in the trial and put in evidence for or against him in any other trial for any other offence which those answers may tend to show he has committed.

The examination of the accused shall be for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him and shall not be a general examination on whatever suggests itself to the Court.

The discretion given by this section for questioning an accused shall not be exercised for the purpose of inducing him to make statements criminatory of himself.

It shall only be exercised for the purpose of ascertaining from an accused how he may be able to meet facts disclosed in evidence against him so that those facts may not stand against him unexplained.

Questions shall not be put to the accused merely to supplement the case for the prosecution when it is defective.

Whenever the accused is examined under this section by any Court other than the High Court the whole of the examination including every question put to him and every answer given by him shall be recorded in full by the courts in Peninsular Malaysia in national language and by the courts in Sabah and Sarawak in English language, and the record shall be shown or read to him or, if he does not understand the national language or the English language, as the case may be, shall be interpreted to him in a language which he understands, and he shall be at liberty to explain or add to his answers.

When the whole has been made conformable to what the accused declares to be the truth the record shall be signed by the presiding Magistrate.” [20] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti peruntukan di bawah seksyen 165 Akta Keterangan 1950 yang mempunyai peruntukan yang hampir sama dengan seksyen 256 KPJ tersebut seperti berikut: “165 Judge's power to put questions or order production The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form at any time, of any witness or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that-

the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant and duly proved;

(ii) this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question or to produce any document which the witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 121 to 131 if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with the primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.” [21] Pemakaian seksyen 165 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan seksyen 256 KPJ ini telah dijelaskan dengan menarik oleh Hakim Neal dalam kes Low Seng Wah v. Public Prosecutor [1962] 1 MLJ 107 seperti yang berikut: “I intimated at that stage that I saw no conflict between the two provisions; that section 165 of the Evidence Ordinance applied to any witness and I saw no reason to limit the term, “witness,” so as to exclude an accused person whereas in my opinion section 256 referring as it does to its use for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain etcetera had clear reference to the case of an accused who elected to make a statement from the dock or not to give any evidence.” [22] Pemakaian seksyen 256 KPJ juga telah diperjelaskan dalam kes Panjavarnan v Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 140 seperti yang berikut: “Now the power of a magistrate, or his duty, if I may say so, to put questions to an accused person not under oath is provided by sub-sections (i) and (ii) of section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code which read as follows: “(i) For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the court may at any stage of a trial or an inquiry, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the court considers necessary.

(ii) For the purpose of this section the accused shall not be sworn and he shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions or by giving false answers to them, but the court may draw such reference from such refusal or answers as it thinks just.” The corresponding section in the Straits Settlements Code has been repealed. It is my opinion that this section is intended to be used when an accused person elects not to give evidence on his own behalf or where he had given evidence but it is discovered subsequently that he had omitted to explain certain circumstances that appear in the evidence against him. According to the section, the questions may be put at any stage of the trial but it was contended that that did not mean that the questions could be put after the case for the defence had been closed. I cannot agree with this interpretation. In my opinion the words “at any stage of the trial” must mean at any time between the commencement of the trial and the delivery of judgment.” [23] Adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa peruntukan di bawah seksyen 256 KPJ dan seksyen 165 Akta Keterangan 1950 ialah untuk memberi peluang kepada hakim bicara mengemukakan soalan bagi mendapatkan keadilan dalam satu perbicaraan. Hal ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes J Ramesh & Ors v. PP [2012] 1 LNS 1453 seperti yang berikut: “[31] With all due respect to the learned counsel, we do not think it was fair to suggest that the learned trial judge had descended into the arena by asking just that single question against the third appellant. As I have stated in another matter, judges do not sit on the bench stone cold. Judges are not mere umpires but must seek to do justice according to law. They ask questions and seek clarification from witnesses and parties in any form at any time. Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1950, which we do not deem it necessary to reproduce empowers the judge to do so. Again, reference must be made to s. 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides specifically on the powers of the court to put questions to an accused person. [32] Lord Greene MR has explained in Yuill v. Yuill [1945] 1 All ER 183 that justice is best done by a judge who holds the balance between the contending parties without himself taking part in their disputations. If a judge should himself conduct the examination of witnesses, said Lord Greene, "he, so to speak, descends into the arena and is liable to have his vision clouded by the dust of conflict". [33] Speaking in the same tune, Denning LJ in Jones v. National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 at p. 64 said: The judge's part in all this is to hearken to the evidence, only himself asking questions of witnesses when it is necessary to clear up any point that has been overlooked or left obscure; to see that the advocates behave themselves seemly and keep to the rules laid down by law; to exclude irrelevancies and discourage repetition; to make sure by wise intervention that he follow the points that the advocates are making and can assess their worth; and at the end to make up his mind where the truth lies. If he goes beyond this, he drops the mantle of a judge and assumes the robe of an advocate; and the change does not become him well. Lord Chancellor Bacon spoke right when he said that: "Patience and gravity of hearing is an essential part of justice; and an over-speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal. and continued at p. 65 saying: Now, it cannot, of course, be doubted that a judge is not only entitled but is, indeed, bound to intervene at any stage of a witness's evidence if he feels that, by reason of the technical nature of the evidence or otherwise, it is only by putting questions of his own that he can properly follow and appreciate what the witness is saying.” [24] Walaupun begitu, Mahkamah ini berpendapat soalan-soalan yang dikemukakan kepada pihak-pihak tidak boleh sehingga menyebabkan Mahkamah sudah berada di dalam arena pertarungan di antara pihak pendakwaan dan Tertuduh. Begitu juga soalan-soalan yang dikemukakan tidak boleh memberi gambaran pendirian Mahkamah berkenaan dengan sesuatu keterangan atau kecenderungan Mahkamah di dalam kes tersebut. Jika ini berlaku maka ia akan menjejaskan perbicaraan yang adil. Hal ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Agong dalam kes Teng Boon How v PP [1993] 3 MLJ 553 dan turut dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Lim Tan Yi lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2021] 9 CLJ 523. Begitu juga dalam kes Rahbar Yadollah Fathi v PP [2020] 1 LNS 99. [25] Penelitian kepada kes-kes berkenaan dengan soalan-soalan yang ditanyakan oleh Mahkamah dalam satu perbicaraan menunjukkan bahawa soalan-soalan yang dikemukakan tersebut tidak wajar menunjukkan penglibatan Mahkamah sebagai Pendakwa Raya atau peguambela dalam satu kes jenayah. Soalan-soalan boleh dikemukakan dengan tujuan untuk mendapatkan penjelasan atau pencerahan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan. Ini bagi membolehkan hakim yang membuat keputusan tersebut mempunyai keterangan yang jelas berkenaan dengan pertikaian di hadapannya. Ia bukan bertujuan untuk menguatkan kes pihak-pihak yang sedang berguam di hadapan hakim tersebut. [26] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam kes ini telah mengemukakan soalan dan meminta Responden membuat tandatangan di atas kertas di D16. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membuat perbandingan tandatangan tersebut dan membuat kesimpulan bahawa tandatangan tersebut bukannya tandatangan di eksibit pengambilan botol sampel urine tersebut bukannya dibuat oleh Responden. Dalam hal ini adalah jelas menunjukkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah memberikan pandangan berkenaan dengan tulisan Responden sedangkan ia sepatutnya diberikan keterangan oleh pakar tulisan seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 47 Akta Keterangan 1950 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “47 Opinion as to handwriting when relevant When the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to have been written or signed, that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation - A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. ILLUSTRATIONS The question is whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Kuala Lumpur, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinion of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.” [27] Adalah penting untuk Mahkamah bicara memastikan bahawa penentuan perbezaan tandatangan adalah tidak dilakukan dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Ini adalah disebabkan selain daripada pakar tulisan tangan, saksi yang boleh mengesahkan berkenaan dengan tulisan tangan seseorang adalah perlu ditunjukkan sebagai seseorang yang biasa dengan tulisan Tertuduh dalam kes ini. Jika itu dapat ditunjukkan maka saksi tersebut dapat mengesahkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa tulisan yang tertera pada eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan adalah merupakan tulisan tangan Tertuduh. Kegagalan untuk menunjukkan bahawa saksi tersebut biasa dengan tulisan tangan Tertuduh boleh menyebabkan keterangannya itu tidak dapat diterima dalam membuktikan tulisan tangan tersebut. [28] Penelitian kepada kes ini adalah didapati tiada sebarang saksi yang biasa dengan tulisan Responden dikemukakan sebagai keterangan. Apa yang ada ialah perbandingan yang dibuat sendiri oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen semasa menilai tulisan tangan yang dilakukan oleh Responden. Mahkamah ini mengambil perhatian kepada kedudukan seksyen 73 Akta Keterangan 1950 yang membolehkan perbandingan dibuat oleh Mahkamah. Seksyen 73 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “73 Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved

In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal, admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person, may be compared by a witness or by the court with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by that person.

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.” [29] Pemakaian seksyen 73 Akta Keterangan 1950 oleh hakim bicara telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ng Yik Seng & Anor v Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 83. Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “It is clear that the learned judge allowed the appeal in part because from the documents which were documents executed in the ordinary course of business there are even to an untutored eye great variations in the signatures of the appellants and his doubt as to the genuineness of the appellant's signatures on the letter of guarantee was not resolved by the failure of the Bank official before whom the guarantee was executed to come forward to say that the guarantors personally appeared before him and in his presence did sign the document in question. His decision therefore to give leave to defend was, with respect, a rightful exercise of his discretion. In arriving at his decision, he was clearly acting under the powers conferred on him by section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1950 and well might he do so when all he had to do in the application before him was to consider whether the point raised was sufficient to amount to a triable issue. But it was also very obvious in the specimens of their signatures provided by the appellants themselves in the documents signed by them which had nothing to do with the Bank, there are equally great variations. In these circumstances we consider that the learned judge had sufficient and cogent reasons to doubt the genuineness of the defence and his decision to give conditional leave to defend was with respect the right one.” [30] Sementara itu dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim [1977] 1 MLJ 64 Mahkamah Tinggi telah menjelaskan berkenaan dengan kedudukan keterangan pakar tulisan dan bagaimanakah kaitannya dengan pembuktian sesuatu kes. YA Hakim Hashim Yeop A. Sani menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “… PW8 was the hand-writing expert. The other two witnesses were familiar with the handwriting of the accused. The cumulative effect of all their combined evidence cannot however be stronger than ordinary opinion evidence. Sarkar says it is certain that all such proof is even in its best form “precarious and often extremely dangerous.” It has been well remarked that many persons write alike. In my view evidence of handwriting expert or experts by itself without any othercorroborative evidence is not normally sufficient for the purpose of recording a definite finding. In this case there is of course a very strong suspicion but suspicion however strong can never substitute for prima facie case. Conclusions based on mere comparison of handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to positive evidence—see Guntaka v Busetti AIR 1954 AP 39. It has beensaid that the art of forming opinion by comparison of handwriting is essentially empirical in character and “error is seldom inseparable from such opinions” — see Sarkar on Evidence, 12th Edition, page 513. According to Glanville Williams it isa “fertile source of error” because the comparison of handwriting is a matter of opinion. Glanville Williams also correctly said in his book ‘The Proof of Guilt’ that the general practice which is extremely objectionable is to give the expertonly two specimens of handwriting to pronounce upon — one the admitted handwriting of the accused and the other the disputed one. The expert if asked to find similarities will invariably find some similarities. In this case in the finalanalysis the court would have to ask itself the question whether at the close of the prosecution evidence it could say certainly that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, which if unrebutted, would have warranteda conviction. I do not think one could honestly answer that question in the affirmative in this case.” [31] Sementara itu dalam kes Chu Choon Moi v Ngan Sew Tin [1986] 1 MLJ 34 Mahkamah Agong menjelaskan bagaimanakah kaedah penerimaan keterangan daripada saksi berkaitan dengan tandatangan di dalam sesuatu dokumen yang masih memerlukan pandangan pakar tandatangan. Ia dinyatakan seperti yang berikut: “The first part of the Judge's ruling is already dealt with above. More important is the ruling regarding his doubt as to the genuineness of the signature of the deceased in the third agreement that is fatal to the appellant's case. It is not proper to attempt making any conclusion on the genuineness of a signature in a document by comparing two similar handwriting without resorting to the opinion of a handwriting expert who is specialised in this field. The requirement becomes incumbent when the handwriting is in Chinese characters in which the Judge in question has no knowledge whatever. It is insufficient to rely on the opinion of an ordinary witness and the more so an interested party in the person of David Yong who in his testimony said he was not certain whether the signature on the third agreement (Ex. P.1) was that of his father. Although he ventured an explanation, he only suspected that the signature was not written by his father. He might be familiar with his father's handwriting but in the circumstances of the case it is unsafe to accept his opinion on the matter. There are elementary requirements of our law of evidence and should not be departed from (Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, 1950)…” [32] Pada hemat Mahkamah ini hakim bicara semasa menggunakan seksyen 256 KPJ atau seksyen 165 Akta Keterangan 1950 dengan mengemukakan soalan-soalan kepada saksi-saksi pendakwaan atau Tertuduh ia bukannya satu pembuka jalan untuk Mahkamah terlibat dalam pertikaian di antara pihak-pihak yang sedang berguam di hadapan Mahkamah. Sebaliknya ia hanyalah untuk Mahkamah mendapatkan penjelasan daripada saksi atau Tertuduh. Ia tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk mencadangkan pembelaan kepada Tertuduh atau memberikan atau mengisi kelompangan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwa Raya. Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu sentiasa mengambil perhatian bahawa sistem perbicaraan jenayah adalah merupakan suatu sistem adversari (adversarial) dan bukannya sistem inquisitori (inquisitorial). Ini bermakna penglibatan Mahkamah dalam perbicaraan hendaklah dihadkan dan bertindak sebagai pengadil yang bebas di dalam memutuskan pertikaian pihak-pihak dan tidak bertindak terlibat langsung dalam perbicaraan dengan mengemukakan persoalan-persoalan yang menjadikannya suatu perbicaraan inquisitori (inquisitorial). [33] Namun demikian dalam kes ini Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen semasa membandingkan tulisan tangan Responden tersebut tidak bertindak di bawah seksyen 73 Akta Keterangan 1950 atau berdasarkan kepada pandangan pakar tulisan tangan atau saksi tulisan tangan seperti di bawah seksyen 47 Akta yang sama. Oleh itu dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkenaan dengan perbandingan tulisan tangan tersebut tidak boleh djiadikan asas untuk menyatakan bahawa tulisan tangan Responden yang terdapat di dalam eksibit yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan bukannya tulisan tangan Responden. [34] Pada hemat Mahkamah di dalam keterujaan hakim bicara menegakkan keadilan ia tidak membolehkan prinsip undang-undang berkenaan dengan seksyen 256 KPJ dan seksyen 165 Akta Keterangan 1950 dibelakangkan. Jika ini berlaku hakim bicara telah tidak menunjukkan bahawa perbicaraan telah dijalankan dengan adil kepada pihak-pihak. Ini adalah disebabkan pihak-pihak akan merasakan bahawa hakim bicara telah membuat keputusan lebih awal sebelum perbicaraan selesai. Ini adalah amat penting untuk dielakkan bagi memastikan keyakinan kepada sistem keadilan tidak terhakis. [35] Mahkamah ini berpendapat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam kes ini telah mengemukakan soalan-soalan dan membuat dapatan berkenaan dengan tulisan tangan dan tandatangan Responden. Pada hemat Mahkamah ini ia adalah satu tidak wajar yang dilakukan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Di samping itu ia juga tidak boleh menjadi asas kepada sabitan kepada pembebasan Responden dalam kes ini. Dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di akhir kes pembelaan [36] Semasa meneliti keterangan pembelaan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam alasan penghakimannya di perenggan 41 (r) sehingga (t) menyatakan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk mematahkan dakwaan Tertuduh bahawa tiadanya terdapat nombor siri pada botol urine tersebut. Ini disebabkan pihak pendakwaan tidak mengemukakan gambar-gambar yang menunjukkan nombor siri kepada botol tersebut iaitu P4A-D. Ini pada hemat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menimbulkan keraguan kepada kes pendakwaan. Ia berjaya ditimbulkan oleh Responden. [37] Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang jelas bahawa di akhir kes pembelaan Mahkamah bicara setelah meneliti semua keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapannya hendaklah memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan yang munasabah. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 173 (m) KPJ seperti yang berikut: “173 Procedure in summary trials

(i) 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.

(ii) 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 and the Court shall pass sentence according to law: Provided that before the Court passes sentence, the Court shall, upon the request of the victim of the offence or the victim's family, call upon the victim or a member of the victim's family to make a statement on the impact of the offence on the victim or his family; and where the victim or a member of the victim's family is for any reason unable to attend the proceedings after being called by the Court, the Court may at its discretion admit a written statement of the victim or a member of the victim's family.

(iii) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.” [38] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menimbangkan dan meneliti keterangan-keterangan tersebut walaupun pada hemat Mahkamah ini tindakan penggunaan seksyen 256 KPJ dan penelitian tandatangan yang dikemukakan oleh Responden adalah tidak wajar dijadikan asas kepada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen untuk membebaskan dan melepaskan Responden dalam kes ini. Namun Mahkamah ini berpendapat tindakan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang memutuskan bahawa terdapat keraguan berkenaan dengan botol urine yang dikatakan tidak dapat ditunjukkan mempunyai nombor siri adalah sesuatu yang sukar untuk diketepikan oleh Mahkamah ini. [39] Pada hemat Mahkamah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah meneliti keterangan-keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan menekuni pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Responden. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen juga telah meneliti keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan beliau. Adalah sukar untuk Mahkamah ini menyatakan bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membuat dapatan yang bercanggah dengan keputusan yang khilaf sehingga memerlukan campur tangan Mahkamah ini. Oleh itu setelah meneliti keseluruhan alasan penghakiman, hujahan-hujahan dan prinsip yang dinyatakan di atas Mahkamah ini berpendapat dapatan dan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen membebaskan dan melepaskan Responden di akhir kes pembelaan adalah disahkan. Bertarikh: 04 hb. Jun 2025 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Perayu TPR Nur Syafikah binti Noorinda Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur Bagi Pihak Responden Mohd Falihin Kamil bin Mohamed Sazali Tetuan Sazali & Lim Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur