Suhidar (Passport: S717561) v Public Prosecutor (J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (Idn))

2.9.2015 on the appellant. [3] Aggrieved with the said convictions and sentences, the appellant filed an appeal to this Court in respect of both orders. We heard the appeal on 30.8.2018, wherein at its conclusion, we unanimously dismissed it. We now give the reasons for our dismissal. The prosecution’s case in brief [4] The factual matrix of the prosecution’s case may be summarized as follows. Based on information received, on 2.9.2015 at around 11.10 a.m., Sub-Inspector Abd Rahman bin Abu Bakar (PW4) led a police party comprising one Lance Corporal Mohamad Izzhan bin Zamri (PW3) and three others approached the appellant who was behaving suspiciously at the area within the Bus and Taxi Stop in Kukup Laut, Permas, Pontian. Upon PW4 introducing himself as a police officer, the appellant took a flight but eventually got arrested after a short struggle. [5] The appellant had with him a sling bag with ‘Polo Danny’ written on it (P8). On examination of the said bag (P8), PW4 discovered one black plastic package (P26). Upon further checking, PW4 discovered 6 transparent plastic packets inside P26 each containing crystalline substance suspected to be dangerous drug. Inside P8, PW4 recovered the appellant’s passport (P12), a wallet (P10), a smoking apparatus (P19), a kartu card (P13) and a tooth brush (P17). In P10, there were Malaysian Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 4 currency in the sum of RM270.00 and some Indonesian currency (RP40,000). [6] PW4 took all the items seized and the appellant to Permas Police Station for further necessary action before handed over the appellant and the exhibits to the investigating officer, Inspector Tan Yong Chew (PW5). [7] On 3.9.2015, PW5 sent all the exhibits suspected to be dangerous drugs to the Chemistry Department and received by the Chemist, Abdul Rahim bin Shadan (PW2). Upon his analysis, PW2 confirmed that the crystalline substance contained in 5 transparent plastic packets (P27- P31A) received from PW5 were Methamphetamine with a combined weight of 356.89 grammes, the subject matter of the first charge. PW2 also confirmed that the substance contained in the transparent plastic packet marked P33 were Heroin and Monoacetylmorphines with a combined weight of 0.18 grammes, subject matter of the second charge. PW2 further confirmed that Methamphetamine, Heroin and Monoacetylmorphines are listed under the First Schedule of the Act. PW2’s chemist report marked as P24, and can be found at page 145 of the Appeal Record, Volume 3. Findings at the end of prosecution’s case [8] As we had alluded to earlier, the learned JC found that a prima facie case had been made out by the prosecution on both charges. The learned JC had considered and accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution as credible in deciding that all ingredients of the charges had been proven against the appellant if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction. Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 5 [9] The learned JC had made a positive findings that the drugs seized from the sling bag of the appellant are of the type, nature and weight as stated in the first and second charges and the drugs were listed under the First Schedule of the Act. This finding was not seriously disputed by the appellant. [10] As for the element of possession, the learned JC relied on the fact that the appellant was having a sling bag which contained the impugned drugs and when approached by PW4 and PW3 and upon knowing the approachers were police officers, the appellant appeared frightened and took a flight but was eventually apprehended after a struggle. The learned JC further relied on the conduct of the appellant to infer knowledge of the impugned drugs on the part of the appellant. [11] As for the element of trafficking, with respect to the first charge, based on the weight of the drug involved which is more than the minimum weight of 50 grammes of Methamphetamine, the learned JC invoked the statutory presumption under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act. [12] Findings by the learned JC at the end of the prosecution’s case were as follows: “[38] Menurut keterangan SP3 dan SP4 sewaktu di tempat kejadian selepas SP4 memperkenalkan diri sebagai anggota polis kepada OKT, OKT dalam keadaan takut telah melarikan diri. SP4 dan anggota-anggota lain kemudian mengejar OKT dan telah berlaku pergelutan antara SP3 dan OKT. Sebelum OKT digari, SP4 berjaya merampas beg sandang (eksibit P8) yang disandang oleh OKT. Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 6 [39] SP4 kemudiannya membuat pemeriksaan badan ke atas OKT dan beg sandang P8 tersebut. SP4 mendapati beg P8 tersebut berzip dan apabila dibuka di dalamnya terdapat (1) plastik hitam (P26). SP4 memberikan keterangan bahawa di dalam P26 tersebut mengandungi 6 peket plastik lutsinar yang terdiri daripada 4 plastik berbentuk lonjong disyaki syabu dan 4 lagi plastik berbentuk empat segi disyaki heroin. [40] Keterangan ini jelas menunjukkan OKT sememangnya mempunyai jagaan ataupun kawalan ke atas dadah-dadah tersebut kerana beg P8 disandang olehnya sebelum ditangkap oleh SP3. [41] Mengenai isu pengetahuan oleh OKT pula, keterangan menunjukkan responden mempunyai pengetahuan apabila reaksi spontan OKT yang kelihatan takut dan terus melarikan diri apabila SP4 memperkenalkan diri sebagai anggota polis. Reaksi ini menunjukkan OKT tahu dia berada dalam situasi yang berbahaya kerana membawa dadah berbahaya pada ketika itu. [42] Malah kedua-dua saksi SP3 dan SP4 juga memberi keterangan mengesahkan ada menjumpai barang-barang lain termasuk dokumen peribadi atas nama OKT satu pasport Responden (P12), 1 beg dompet berisi wang RM270 dan RP40,000 (P10, P14A-F dan P15A-C) dan 1 kad kartu atas nama OKT (P13) di dalam beg sandang P8 tersebut. Fakta ini menunjukkan dan membuktikan wujudnya pengetahuan OKT atas semua kandungan di dalam beg P8 tersebut termasuklah barang-barang kes dadah. [43] Reaksi OKT yang bertindak agresif sewaktu berada di dalam kereta semasa dalam perjalanan menuju ke Balai Polis Pontian juga menunjukkan Responden sedar dan tahu akan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan olehnya. [44]

(b) OKT datang dengan membawa 1 buah beg bersamanya dan setibanya di Pontian, OKT telah menginap di sebuah hotel bajet untuk tempoh 1 malam;

(c) OKT menyatakan di dalam beg tersebut hanya ada 1 helai baju, tuala, seluar dan berus gigi;

(d) OKT telah daftar keluar hotel pada keesokan harinya dan mula mencari pekerjaan dan di kawasan Kukup semasa OKT sampai di Perhentian Bas dan Teksi Kukup (“Perhentian bas tersebut”) seorang lelaki Indonesia telah datang kepadanya dan bersalam. OKT menyatakan tidak mengenali lelaki Indonesia tersebut;

(e) Lelaki Indonesia tersebut telah bertanyakan OKT di mana beliau boleh menaiki bot secara haram untuk balik ke Indonesia dan OKT telah menjawab dia tidak tahu;

(f) Semasa OKT dan lelaki Indonesia tersebut sedang berbual, terdapat 1 orang lelaki Melayu telah menjerit ‘Tangkap dia’ sambil menunjuk ke arah mereka berdua;

(g) Kemudian sekumpulan lelaki telah berlari ke arah mereka berdua dan lelaki Indonesia yang tidak dikenali tersebut telah mencampakkan satu beg plastik ke atas tanah;

(h) OKT terperanjat dan tidak tahu apa yang berlaku dan mengatakan lelaki Indonesia tersebut telah melarikan diri daripada kumpulan lelaki tersebut;

(i) OKT telah dipukul oleh sekumpulan lelaki seramai 4-5 orang tersebut dan telah menangkap OKT; Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 10

(j) Kemudian 3 orang pegawai polis telah datang dan OKT telah ditangkap semula oleh pihak polis. Pihak polis juga telah mengambil beg tersebut dan dompet OKT dan seterusnya membawa OKT ke Balai Polis Permas;

(k) Setibanya di Balai Polis Permas, SP4 masuk ke balai dan selepas itu OKT dibawa ke klinik untuk rawatan kecederaan yang dialami akibat dipukul oleh sekumpulan lelaki tersebut;

(l) Selepas mendapat rawatan, OKT dibawa ke Balai Polis Permas, OKT nampak kesemua barang-barang kepunyaannya yang disimpan di dalam begnya telah dikeluarkan dan diletakkan di atas meja dan tidak mengetahui apakah yang telah dilakukan oleh pihak polis terhadap barang-barang tersebut;

(m) OKT kemudiannya telah dibawa ke IPD Pontian dan semasa perjalanan ke IPD Pontian, OKT telah berkali-kali memberitahu pihak polis bahawa beg plastik tersebut adalah milik lelaki Indonesia yang telah melarikan diri tersebut tetapi tidak diendahkan oleh pihak polis;

(n) Setibanya di IPD Pontian, OKT telah dibawa ke Pejabat dan diserahkan kepada Pegawai Penyiasat Inspektor Tan (SP5), OKT sekali lagi telah memberitahu SP5 bahawa beg plastik tersebut bukan kepunyaannya tetapi milik lelaki Indonesia yang telah melarikan diri dan OKT jelas tersalah ditangkap oleh kumpulan lelaki tersebut. OKT mengatakan SP5 tidak mengendahkan aduan OKT tersebut.” [15] After considering the appellant’s defence, the learned JC found that the appellant had not succeeded in raising any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The learned JC also found that the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da)(xvi) of the Act on balance of probabilities in respect of the first charge. Learned Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 11 JC was satisfied that the prosecution had proven both charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. [16] The appellant was thus convicted and sentenced to suffer the mandatory death penalty as mandated under section 39B(2) of the Act in respect of the first charge and a sentence of 2 years imprisonment effective from the date of arrest in respect of the second charge. Hence, the appellant’s appeal before us. The appeal [17] Before us, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed only the following two (2) grounds of appeal:

(a) that the learned JC erred in finding that the defence was a bare denial without any independent evidence; and

(b) the learned JC had erred when drawing inference of guilt from the signature of the appellant on the Search List (P35). Our deliberation and decision [18] We had the opportunities of perusing the appeal records which include the learned JC’s grounds of judgment, the notes of proceeding and the exhibits. After considering the submissions of parties on the issues raised before us, we are of the unanimous view that there was no appealable error on the part of the learned JC. Her Ladyship’s findings and decisions were not perverse warranting an appellate intervention. The findings and decisions of the learned JC were amply supported by the evidence on record. Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 12 [19] On the issue that the learned JC erred in finding that the defence of the appellant was a bare denial without any independent evidence, learned counsel referred us to the grounds of judgment of the learned JC at page 32, Appeal Record Volume 2 where her Ladyship stated: “(vii) Oleh itu Mahkamah mendapati keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Pihak Pembelaan adalah merupakan penafian semata-mata tanpa sebarang keterangan sokongan atau keterangan bebas yang lain. Sebaliknya keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah konsisten dan menyokong antara satu sama lain.” [20] Citing a few relevant authorities on the same point, learned counsel submitted that the finding of the learned JC was wrong as the appellant’s defence was put or suggested to the relevant prosecution’s witnesses during the trial proper. Thus the defence of the appellant was not a bare denial but an explanation indicating that someone else, not he, was the real trafficker. Learned counsel further argued that the convictions were not safe when there was no fair and just assessment of the defence case by the trial judge. [21] We had examined the defence put up by the appellant. The defence of the appellant were premised on the following:

(a) that the appellant was mistakenly arrested by a group of unknown men, beaten up and later rearrested by the police;

(b) that the black plastic bag (P26) was thrown on the ground by another Indonesian man when the said man fled the scene; Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 13

(c) that the appellant had been in Malaysia for about two (2) days before the incident;

(d) that the appellant was only carrying his sling bag (P8) containing his personal belongings which he brought from Indonesia to Malaysia;

(e) that appellant’s wallet (P10), passport (P12) and kad kartu (P13) were actually seized from the appellant’s pocket;

(f) that the appellant had denied on all allegations made by the prosecution’s witnesses;

(g) that the appellant had repeatedly told the police that the P26 belongs to another Indonesian man but he was ignored; and

(h) that there was no DNA and fingerprint found to connect the appellant with the impugned drugs and the smoking apparatus (P19). [22] We observed from the record that all material particulars raised by the appellant at the defence stage had in fact been listed and discussed by the learned JC in her grounds of judgment as can be found at pages 24 till 33 of the Appeal Record Volume 1. We agreed with the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor’s submission that the learned JC had sufficiently considered the appellant’s defence and that the learned JC had not committed any error in her findings and decisions in rejecting the defence of the appellant. [23] In her final analysis of the defence case, the learned JC concludes: Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 14 “[60] Mahkamah mendapati pembelaan OKT hanya merupakan penafian semata-mata tanpa keterangan sokongan yang neutral. Segala keterangan OKT mengenai kecederaan akibat dia cuba melarikan diri dan dipukul oleh sekumpulan lelaki bertentangan dengan keterangan saksi-saksi polis. [61] OKT hanya menafikan dia adalah pemilik beg plastik P29 dan kandungannya. Walau bagaimanapun tiada keterangan lain yang menyokong penafian OKT. [62] OKT juga menafikan barang kes dadah dan botol kaca P19 ditemui daripadanya. Walau bagaimanapun OKT telah menandatangani borang senarai geledah P35 dan OKT sendiri menyatakan bahawa tiada sesiapa yang memaksanya untuk menandatangani P35 tersebut. [63] Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan tersebut menunjukkan OKT hanyalah mengemukakan pembelaan penafian semata-mata terhadap keterangan pihak pendakwaan. [64] OKT cuba memperbaiki keterangan semasa kes pembelaan mengenai mengapa dia menandatangani P35 adalah kerana tidak nampak akibat kecederaan, namun perkara ini tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa pemeriksaan balas di peringkat kes pendakwaan. Oleh itu, ianya hanyalah satu ‘after thought’. [65] Oleh itu, Mahkamah mendapati tiada walau satu pun keterangan bebas yang dapat menyokong keterangan OKT. Malah versi OKT amatlah bercanggah dengan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang lain. [66] Oleh itu, sebagai kesimpulannya, Mahkamah membuat dapatan seperti berikut: Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 15

(i) Tertuduh telah dipanggil untuk membela diri terhadap kedua-dua pindaan pertuduhan iaitu Pindaan Pertuduhan Pertama dan Kedua. Tertuduh telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah dari kandang saksi;

(v) Begitu juga keterangan OKT mengenai tarikh dia datang ke Malaysia dan penjelasannya yang tidak jelas. OKT menyatakan dia datang ke Malaysia pada 31.8.2015 dan telah ditangkap keesokan harinya. Sekiranya benar maka tarikh dia ditangkap sepatutnya adalah 1.9.2015. Walau bagaimanapun keterangan-keterangan dalam kes pendakwaan menunjukkan OKT telah ditangkap pada 2.9.2016. Kemudian OKT telah memperbetulkan keterangannya dengan menyatakan dia telah menginap di hotel tetapi telah gagal untuk mengemukakan sebarang bukti Criminal Appeal No: J-05(M)-185-05/2017 (IDN) 17 seperti resit hotel tersebut. OKT juga menyatakan dia tidak ingat apakah nama hotel tersebut, ini menimbulkan keraguan sama ada keterangan mengenai menginap di hotel ini adalah benar atau tidak.