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

Case Significance

Reinforces the appellate reluctance to reverse a discharge and acquittal on trafficking and possession charges where the prosecution's possession evidence is materially incomplete, the point being decided across two companion appeals by the same majority.

This is the companion Court of Appeal appeal, heard together with the linked prosecution appeal arising from the same operation and the same two respondents, and disposed of by the same majority judgment. It traces to a separate High Court trial number at Kuala Lumpur, and like its companion it challenges the discharge and acquittal of both accused at the close of the prosecution case. The respondents had faced four charges: two amended trafficking charges under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) for Cannabis weighing 493.61 grams and Methamphetamine weighing 189.84 grams; a possession charge for 6.63 grams of Heroin under section 12(2) punishable under section 39A(2); and a possession charge for 0.93 grams of Monoacetylmorphines under section 12(2) punishable under section 12(3) — all founded on common intention under seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan (section 34 of the Penal Code). The High Court had found that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case and ordered the accused dilepaskan dan dibebaskan (discharged and acquitted); the Public Prosecutor appealed. The majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the prosecution's case contained gaps (kelompangan) capable of raising reasonable doubt about possession — in particular in the evidence describing what occurred in the main room of the house and in testimony open to inferences favourable to the defence — and that no appealable error had been shown. It therefore dismissed the prosecution's appeal and affirmed the acquittals, one member of the panel dissenting and taking the view that a defence should have been called. The judgment reinforces the appellate reluctance to reverse an acquittal where the prosecution's possession evidence is materially incomplete, and it records how two linked appeals arising from separate trial numbers but the same operation were resolved together, the majority affirming the acquittals on all four charges while the dissenting member would have ordered the respondents to enter their defence. It stands as a companion authority to the parallel appeal decided on identical reasoning.