AKAHIMO / AKANIMO v Pendakwa Raya

b-05sh-313-06-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 18 June 2025 • B-05(SH)-313-06/2024 • 85 min read
17 cases cited (0 SG, 17 foreign)

Catchwords

seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan - kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah - rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah - kewujudan kelompangan dan keraguan tentang identiti barang-barang kes - ketiadaan cabaran atau soalan dikemukakan kepada saksi - rakaman CCTV - inferens menentang mengikut seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - keterangan dokumentar melalui CCTV bersifat keterangan sokongan sahaja - nilai sokongan yang kecil - keterangan-keterangan lain yang melimpah ruah - keterangan CCTV atau cap jari relevan dan significant didalam keadaan dimana identiti menjadi isu pertikaian - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi – keberadaan di tempat kejadian - pihak pembelaan telah gagal untuk mematahkan anggapan yang berbangkit di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952

Practice Areas

seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan

Judges (3)

Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali Coram Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Coram

Counsel (3)

Chambers of Sivahnanthan Ragava Firm Noor Farhana binti Adham Counsel Prosecution Sivahnanthan Ragava Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Akahimo / Akanimo Appellant

Case Significance

AKAHIMO / AKANIMO v Pendakwa Raya is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated June 18, 2025 (citation: b-05sh-313-06-2024). <p>The appellant, a Nigerian national, was convicted of trafficking 24,753 grams of methamphetamine with three co-accused at a restaurant parking lot in Hulu Langat. The key issues were custody, control and knowledge of the drugs, the chain of evidence, and whether the prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage warranted an adverse inference. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment (30 years) sentence and 16 strokes of whipping.</p> The panel comprised Azmi bin Ariffin, Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali and Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan, with Azmi bin Ariffin delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Noor Farhana binti Adham (prosecution counsel), Sivahnanthan Ragava (counsel for appellant).

Summary

The appellant, a Nigerian national, was convicted of trafficking 24,753 grams of methamphetamine with three co-accused at a restaurant parking lot in Hulu Langat. The key issues were custody, control and knowledge of the drugs, the chain of evidence, and whether the prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage warranted an adverse inference. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment (30 years) sentence and 16 strokes of whipping.

What was the outcome of AKAHIMO / AKANIMO v Pendakwa Raya?

<p>The appellant, a Nigerian national, was convicted of trafficking 24,753 grams of methamphetamine with three co-accused at a restaurant parking lot ...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)

Cases Cited (17)

UK (2)
[1974] 2 All ER 840 [2013] 1 WLR 2477
MY (15)
[1997] 1 CLJ 233 [2001] 1 CLJ 381 [2004] 4 CLJ 551 [2004] 4 MLJ 489 [2007] 3 CLJ 281 [2007] 4 CLJ 337 [2009] 1 CLJ 717 [2011] 5 CLJ 345 [2013] 6 CLJ 945 [2014] 2 CLJ 649 [2014] 3 MLJ 616 [2014] 8 CLJ 413 [2017] 1 CLJ 575 [2019] 5 CLJ 780 [2020] 12 MLJ 67