CASES OF THE WEEK

The appellant, at the time of his arrest, was carrying a green canvas bag (`P10') in which five slabs of cannabis wrapped in a transparent plastic were found. PW4 prepared the search list and made the necessary markings and dated the drugs exhibits before handing it over to PW6. PW6 made similar markings and weighed the five slabs of the drugs exhibits and recorded the weight as 4,860g. Subsequently, P10 and the drugs exhibits were sent to the chemist (`PW3'), who recorded the gross weight of 4,688.55g. Upon analysis, the drugs exhibits were found to be 4,607g of cannabis. The appellant was subsequently charged in the High Court for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (`DDA') and punishable under s. 39B(2) of the DDA. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal, the conviction and sentence was unanimously affirmed. Hence, this appeal. The appellant submitted that there were material discrepancies in the condition of the drugs exhibits, in particular the manner in which the drugs exhibits were wrapped and the gross weight of the drugs exhibits as found by PW3 and that of PW6. It was the appellant's submission that the discrepancies were not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, thus creating a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drugs exhibits.

Held (dismissing appeal; affirming conviction and sentence)

Per Raus Sharif PCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) While it was true that PW3 had, in her report, stated that the five slabs of drugs exhibits that she received from SP6 were wrapped in aluminum foil reinforced by adhesive tape, she had also corrected herself while giving evidence in court by stating that the five slabs of drugs exhibits were wrapped with transparent plastic. She also applied to the court to have the chemist report amended by substituting the word aluminum foil with transparent plastic. The amendment was allowed without objection by the defence counsel. Hence, the identity of the drugs exhibits was never an issue before the High Court as well as the Court of Appeal. In the circumstances, the issue of discrepancies on the manner in which the five slabs of drugs exhibits were wrapped was devoid of merit. (paras 17 & 18)

(2) PW4 and PW6 had clearly identified the drugs exhibits that were produced before the High Court. They had both clearly identified the markings that they had made on the exhibits that were produced before the High Court, including the dates and the signatures which they had placed on the five slabs of the drugs exhibits. PW3 had also identified the markings as found on the exhibits when she received them from PW6. Hence, the contention that the drugs exhibits produced before the High Court might not be the same as the ones seized by PW4 from the appellant, was misconceived as there was no break in the chain of evidence that could have created a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drugs exhibits. (para 20)

(3) The difference in the gross weight which was 171.45g less could be due to the fact that the drugs exhibits were weighed by PW3 nearly three months after they were weighed by PW6. The court took judicial notice that environmental factors such as climate condition and humidity could have attributed to the difference in the weight of the impugned drugs exhibits. Given that there was an interval of nearly three months before the drugs exhibits were sent to PW3, the drugs exhibits, being cannabis, could have dried up a little and this could be the reason for the lesser weight. (para 21)

(4) The weighing process by the police was not the determining factor in the weight of the drugs, rather it was the weighing done by the chemist which determined the actual weight of the drugs and formed the basis of the charge. It is common knowledge that the weighing process undertaken by the police after the seizure of the drugs was only for classification purposes in the determination of the charge and/or arrested person. More often than not, the disparity in the weight of the drugs recorded was inevitable due to the different weighing methods preferred and the different weighing apparatus used by the police force and the chemist department. (para 21)

(5) The difference in weight of the drugs exhibits by itself as found by PW6 and the chemist was not sufficient to create reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case. There was no doubt that the drugs exhibits seized from the appellant and as examined by PW3 were the same drugs exhibits that the appellant was charged with. There was no break in the chain of evidence and the drugs exhibits were positively identified by the prosecution witnesses. (para 25)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu, semasa ditangkap, sedang membawa sebuah beg kanvas berwarna hijau (`P10') yang mana di dalamnya telah ditemui lima ketulan kanabis yang dibungkus dengan plastik lutsinar. PW4 menyediakan senarai carian dan membuat catatan-catatan yang perlu dan meletakkan tarikh pada ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut sebelum menyerahkannya kepada PW6. PW6 membuat catatan-catatan yang serupa dan menimbang kelima-lima ketulan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut dan merekodkan beratnya sebagai 4,860g. Kemudian, P10 dan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut dihantar kepada ahli kimia (`PW3'), yang merekodkan berat kasarnya sebagai 4,688.55g. Selepas dianalisa, ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut adalah 4,607g kanabis. Perayu dituduh di Mahkamah Tinggi bagi kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (`ADB') yang boleh dihukum di bawah s. 39B(2) ADB. Perayu disabitkan dan dijatuhkan hukuman mati. Atas rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan, sabitan dan hukuman tersebut disahkan secara sebulat suara. Maka, rayuan ini. Perayu menghujahkan bahawa terdapat percanggahan material terhadap ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut, khususnya cara ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut dibungkus dan berat kasar ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang didapati oleh PW3 dan PW6. Perayu menghujahkan bahawa percanggahan-percanggahan tersebut tidak dijelaskan secara memuaskan oleh pihak pendakwaan, lantaran itu membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap identiti ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan; mengesahkan sabitan dan hukuman)

Oleh Raus Sharif PMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Walaupun benar bahawa PW3, dalam laporannya, telah menyatakan bahawa kelima-lima ketulan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang diterimanya daripada SP6 dibungkus dengan foil aluminum yang diketatkan lagi dengan pita pelekat, tetapi dia juga memperbetulkan dirinya semasa memberikan keterangan di mahkamah dengan menyatakan bahawa kelima-lima ketulan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut dibungkus dengan plastik lutsinar. Dia juga memohon kepada mahkamah untuk meminda laporan ahli kimia dengan menggantikan perkataan foil aluminum kepada plastik lutsinar. Pindaan tersebut dibenarkan tanpa bantahan oleh peguam pembelaan. Maka, identiti ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tidak pernah menjadi isu di Mahkamah Tinggi dan juga di Mahkamah Rayuan. Dalam keadaan tersebut, isu percanggahan berkaitan dengan cara ketulan-ketulan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah dibungkus adalah tidak bermerit.

(2) PW4 dan PW6 telah mengenalpasti dengan jelas ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah Tinggi. Kedua-dua mereka telah mengenalpasti dengan jelas catatan-catatan yang dibuat oleh mereka pada ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah Tinggi, termasuk tarikh dan tandatangan yang mereka letakkan pada kelima-lima ketulan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut. PW3 juga telah mengenalpasti catatan-catatan yang didapati pada ekshibit-ekshibit tersebut apabila dia menerimanya daripada PW6. Maka, hujahan bahawa ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah Tinggi mungkin tidak sama dengan yang dirampas oleh PW4 daripada perayu, merupakan suatu salah tanggapan kerana tidak ada pemutusan dalam rantaian keterangan yang boleh membangkitkan keraguan munasabah berkaitan dengan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut.

(3) Perbezaan dalam berat kasar yang kurang 171.45g mungkin disebabkan oleh fakta bahawa ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut telah ditimbang oleh PW3 hampir tiga bulan selepas ia ditimbang oleh PW6. Mahkamah membuat pengiktirafan kehakiman bahawa faktor-faktor alam sekitar seperti keadaan iklim dan kelembapan boleh memberi kesan kepada berat ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang dipersoalkan. Melihatkan pada jarak masa hampir tiga bulan sebelum ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut dihantar kepada PW3, ekshibit-ekshibit dadah tersebut, yang adalah kanabis, mungkin telah kering sedikit dan berkemungkinan ini adalah sebab mengapa terdapat kekurangan pada beratnya.

(4) Proses penimbangan oleh pihak polis bukan faktor penentu berat dadah tersebut, tetapi penimbangan oleh ahli kimia yang menentukan berat sebenar dadah dan membentuk asas pertuduhan. Adalah pengetahuan umum bahawa proses penimbangan yang dilakukan oleh pihak polis selepas rampasan dadah adalah hanya untuk tujuan pengklasifikasian dalam menentukan pertuduhan dan/atau orang yang ditangkap. Selalunya, perbezaan dalam berat dadah yang direkodkan tidak dapat dielakkan kerana cara penimbangan yang berbeza serta penggunaan alat penimbang yang berbeza oleh pasukan polis dan jabatan kimia.

(5) Perbezaan dalam berat ekshibit-ekshibit dadah itu sendiri seperti yang didapati oleh PW6 dan PW3 tidak cukup untuk membentuk keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan. Tiada keraguan bahawa ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang dirampas daripada perayu dan yang dianalisa oleh PW3 adalah ekshibit-ekshibit dadah yang sama yang menjadi perkara pertuduhan terhadap perayu. Tidak ada pemutusan dalam rangkaian keterangan dan ekshibit-ekshibit dadah telah dikenalpasti secara positif oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan.

Case(s) referred to:

Loh Kah Loon v. PP [2011] 5 CLJ 345 FC (foll)

Tan Yew Choy v. PP [2009] 4 CLJ 245 FC (refd)

Yeong Kia Heng v. PP [1992] 1 CLJ 364; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 372 SC (refd)

Zaifull Muhammad v. PP & Another Appeal [2013] 2 CLJ 383 (dist)

Legislation referred to:

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 2, 37(da)(vi), 39B(1)(a), (2)

Counsel:

For the appellant - Gooi Soon Seng; M/s Gooi & Azura

For the respondent - Nurulhuda Nur'aini Mohd Nor; DPP

[Appeal from Court of Appeal; Criminal Appeal No: B-05-235-2010]

Reported by S Barathi