MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates that the absence of forensic fingerprint or DNA evidence on drug exhibits is not, by itself, fatal to a conviction under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 where possession is otherwise proved and the section 37(d) presumption is unrebutted.

This Court of Appeal decision is one of three criminal appeals by the same appellant, heard together, against convictions for drug trafficking under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) entered by the High Court at Shah Alam. In this appeal the appellant's principal complaint concerned the sufficiency of the forensic evidence linking him to the drugs. He argued that the absence of any forensic investigation to raise fingerprints or DNA on the drug exhibits, and the failure to satisfy the pre-condition in seksyen 32(1)(i) Akta Keterangan 1950 (section 32(1)(i) of the Evidence Act 1950) governing the admissibility of certain statements, left the chain of evidence connecting him to the drugs incomplete. The panel, comprising Hashim bin Hamzah, Azman bin Abdullah and Azmi bin Ariffin JJCA, examined whether these gaps were fatal to the conviction or whether the trial judge had been entitled to find that the identity and integrity of the exhibits were established by the other evidence led. The court also considered the operation of the statutory presumption of possession under seksyen 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, which the appellant had to rebut on a balance of probabilities, and the appellant's defence, which the trial judge had treated as a bare denial (penafian semata-mata). Having reviewed the grounds of the High Court judge, the written and oral submissions and the evidence as a whole, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the absence of fingerprint or DNA analysis rendered the conviction unsafe where the other evidence sufficiently proved possession, and it held that the presumption under section 37(d) had not been rebutted. The court mengesahkan sabitan dan hukuman (affirmed the conviction and sentence) and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the decision of the High Court. The judgment illustrates that the absence of forensic fingerprint or DNA evidence is not, by itself, fatal to a trafficking conviction where possession is otherwise proved.