Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] v 1. ) MURUKAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 2. ) RAJA SEKAR SELVAM

Case Significance

Shows an appellate court declining to disturb a discharge and acquittal on drug charges where the prosecution's evidence of possession leaves gaps that support inferences consistent with innocence, over a dissent that would have called for a defence.

This is the majority judgment (Penghakiman Majoriti) of the Court of Appeal in a prosecution appeal against an acquittal at the close of the prosecution case. The two respondents had faced four charges arising from a single operation: two amended charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs — Cannabis weighing 493.61 grams and Methamphetamine weighing 189.84 grams — under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952); a charge of possession of 6.63 grams of Heroin under section 12(2) punishable under section 39A(2); and a further charge of possession of 0.93 grams of Monoacetylmorphines under section 12(2) punishable under section 12(3). All four were laid on the footing of common intention under seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code). At the close of the prosecution case the High Court found that no prima facie case had been made out and ordered both accused discharged and acquitted on all charges; the Public Prosecutor appealed. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that there were gaps (kelompangan) in the prosecution's case capable of raising a reasonable doubt about whether the respondents possessed the drugs across all four charges — including gaps in the evidence of key witnesses about events in the main room of the house and evidence that could give rise to inferences favourable to the defence. Concluding that no appealable error had been shown, the majority dismissed the prosecution's appeal and affirmed the acquittals, though one member of the panel dissented and would have called the respondents to enter their defence. The judgment illustrates how an appellate court declines to disturb a discharge and acquittal where the prosecution's evidence on possession leaves gaps that support inferences consistent with innocence, and it is a notable example of a split appellate bench in which the majority treats unresolved evidential gaps as fatal to the prosecution's bid to overturn an acquittal, while the dissent would have held that a prima facie case was made out on all four charges and called the accused to enter their defence.