Wan Mohd Efizan Bin W. Mohd Shamli v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Reinforces that alleged inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses will not disturb a drug conviction unless material to an element of the offence, the point being decided across two linked appeals by the same appellant heard together and resolved by the same panel.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya is the companion to a linked criminal appeal by the same appellant, and it arises from the second of two separate High Court trials at Shah Alam that were heard together on appeal. The appellant had been prosecuted for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — trafficking under seksyen 39B(1)(a) (section 39B(1)(a)), punishable under section 39B(2), and possession under section 12(2) punishable under section 39A(1), read with seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code) — with the prosecution invoking the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da). As in the companion appeal, the appellant's principal challenge was directed at an alleged material contradiction between two prosecution witnesses, SP7 and SP8, concerning the discovery of the drugs, and at the trial court's handling of the procedure under section 154 of the Evidence Act 1950 for questioning a witness and the reception of evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 relating to information leading to discovery. The Court of Appeal, having reviewed the record, was not persuaded that the discrepancies relied upon were material or that they cast doubt on the trial judge's findings on possession, knowledge and trafficking. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and the sentence, including the direction that the accused be detained at Kajang Prison until the sentence of whipping had been carried out. Determined by the same panel of Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Noorin binti Badaruddin JJCA that decided the linked appeal, the judgment reinforces the principle that alleged inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses will not disturb a conviction unless they go to a matter material to the elements of the offence, and it stands together with its companion appeal as a single appellate resolution of the appellant's linked prosecutions.