Evidence
589 cases · July 2017 to July 2026
Overview
Evidence appears in 589 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).
In this practice area
Evidence collects the judgments in which the admissibility, weight and proof of material are decisive. The reasoning is anchored in the Evidence Act 1950 and cuts across both civil and criminal proceedings, so the area sits alongside contract, land, tort and drug cases wherever the outcome turns on what may be proved and how.
Documentary proof is a persistent subject. Judgments consider the admissibility of documents, disputed notations and alleged forgery, the exclusion of unverified material, and the burden of proof where authenticity is in issue. In criminal matters the collection examines the admissibility of an accused's conduct in trafficking prosecutions under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the treatment of statements, and the operation of statutory presumptions. Corroboration is a further theme: the courts explain that corroboration is not limited to independent oral testimony and that circumstantial evidence may itself corroborate where the circumstances point in the required direction.
The area also captures the appellate treatment of findings of fact. Judgments describe the trial judge's advantage in assessing a witness's demeanour and the resulting restraint of an appellate court, together with the different approaches the High Court and the Court of Appeal may take when reassessing the evidence. Specialised evidential provisions appear as well, including section 112 of the Evidence Act 1950 on the legitimacy of a child born during a lawful marriage and section 90A on computer-generated documents.
The cases are concentrated in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, with the Federal Court settling questions of principle. As a whole the collection shows how the Malaysian courts decide what may go before them, how much weight it carries, and who bears the burden of establishing a disputed fact — the evidential foundation on which every substantive claim ultimately rests. Because the rules apply uniformly, the same provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 are seen at work in a drug prosecution, a land dispute and a commercial trial within the collection.
Case Volume by Year
3 17
2 18
1 20
2 21
3 22
5 23
76 24
301 25
196 26
2017–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Credibility of witness — Child witness — Uncorroborated evidence — Court may convict on uncorroborated evidence of child if "unusually convincing" — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, s 18 — Whether discrepancies in testimony material — Adverse inference — Failure to call material witnesses — Whether prosecution obliged to call every possible witness — Whether inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 warranted — Witnesses not eyewitnesses to sexual acts — No adverse inference drawn 5 Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Conduct of Appellants and abusive relationship between Appellants and Deceased prior to her death — Whether amounted to bad character — Whether HCJ had erred in taking into consideration bad character of Appellants — Evidence Act 1950, sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 2 Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Evidence adduced by the prosecution entirely circumstantial — Whether HCJ had appreciated the totality of the evidence in finding the Appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt 2 Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Failure to call expert witness (arborist) — Whether adverse inference drawn — Effect where res ipsa loquitur applies 2 Burden of proof — Whether plaintiff proved disputed monies belonged exclusively to it — Whether oral evidence and contemporaneous documents supported plaintiff's construction of agreement. 1 Burden of proof — Plaintiff succeeding on strength of own case — Circumstantial evidence — Inference from proved facts — Difference between legitimate inference and conjecture — Failure to identify wrongdoer — Documentary evidence — Contemporaneous records — Computer-generated documents — Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 — Admissibility of inspection photographs — Certificate under section 90A(2) — Primary and secondary evidence — Integrity of physical exhibits — Chain of custody — Weight of evidence. 1 Admissions — Statements made by company director in separate proceedings — Whether binding admissions against company — Representative capacity — Evidential weight. 1 Affidavit evidence — Conflicting factual accounts — Whether court may resolve competing evidence on preliminary issue. 1 Matrimonial proceedings — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Failure to disclose assets — Adverse inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950. 1 Affidavit evidence — Audio recordings — Police report — Credibility — Whether disputed evidence capable of determination without trial. 1 Documentary evidence — Police report — Exhibit P11 — Complainant's police report stated that accused asked for permission to touch for treatment purposes and complainant allowed — Whether report contradicted complainant's oral testimony — Whether report supported accused's defence — Section 7 Evidence Act 1950 1 Witnesses — Prosecution witness — SP4 — Witness present throughout treatment — Witness confirmed consent was given — Witness confirmed same treatment method used on her daughter with positive results — Whether evidence of prosecution witness could support accused's defence — Credibility of witness 1 Proof of service — Registered-post receipts — Tracking records — Statutory declaration of service — Whether sufficient to establish posting and deemed service. 1 Admissions — Signed loan agreement — Statutory declaration — Borrower’s acknowledgment of receipt of RM180,000 — Whether admission against interest constitutes substantive evidence of indebtedness — Effect of admissions on evidential burden of proof — Evidence Act 1950, ss 17, 18, 21. 1 Statutory declaration — Evidential value — Commissioner for Oaths — Alleged failure to explain contents of declaration — Non-compliance with Commissioners for Oaths Rules 2018 — Whether declaration rendered void or inadmissible — Whether signed acknowledgment remained admissible as admission notwithstanding procedural irregularity. 1 Admissions — Statutory declaration — First-person acknowledgment of receipt of money — Whether admissible independently of validity of jurat or attestation process — Evidence Act 1950, ss 17, 18, 21. 1 Credibility — Borrower advancing inconsistent defences — Denial of signature — Admission of signature — Alleged deception — Partial repayment — Whether shifting and contradictory accounts undermined credibility. 1 Adverse inference — Failure to call witnesses to cash transactions — Whether adverse inference should be drawn against lender — Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g). 1 Admissions — Emails originating from company’s admitted email account — Whether admissible as admissions under Evidence Act 1950 — Whether hearsay rule applicable — Sections 17–21 Evidence Act 1950. 1 Adverse inference — Failure to call material witness — Director alleged to have authorised transaction not called — Whether adverse inference to be drawn — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950. 1
+ 147 more
Credibility of witness — Child witness — Uncorroborated evidence — Court may convict on uncorroborated evidence of child if "unusually convincing" — Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, s 18 — Whether discrepancies in testimony material — Adverse inference — Failure to call material witnesses — Whether prosecution obliged to call every possible witness — Whether inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 warranted — Witnesses not eyewitnesses to sexual acts — No adverse inference drawn 5 cases
ta-42jsksa-1-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
ta-42jsksa-2-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
ta-42jsksa-3-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
ta-42jsksa-4-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
ta-42jsksa-5-06-2025 ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
7 June 2026
Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Conduct of Appellants and abusive relationship between Appellants and Deceased prior to her death — Whether amounted to bad character — Whether HCJ had erred in taking into consideration bad character of Appellants — Evidence Act 1950, sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 2 cases
Murder — Appeal by Appellants who were convicted and sentenced to death by HCJ — Evidence adduced by the prosecution entirely circumstantial — Whether HCJ had appreciated the totality of the evidence in finding the Appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt 2 cases
Burden of proof — Balance of probabilities — Failure to call expert witness (arborist) — Whether adverse inference drawn — Effect where res ipsa loquitur applies 2 cases
ta-12b-7-04-2025 1. ) RAZLEEN BINTI AWANG (Menuntut sebagai balu yang sah kepada Mohd Amin Bin Ibrahim (simati), untuk gantirugi kesedihan, kehilangan tanggungan dan kerugian perbelanjaan di bawah Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956 (Pindaan) 2. ) XXXX v 1. ) ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI TERENGGANU
26 January 2026
ta-12b-8-04-2025 1. ) Nur Zafirah binti Bazaredi 2. ) Norliza binti Mat Hassan v 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Terengganu 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) Roadcare (M) Sdn. Bhd.
26 January 2026
Burden of proof — Whether plaintiff proved disputed monies belonged exclusively to it — Whether oral evidence and contemporaneous documents supported plaintiff's construction of agreement. 1 case
Burden of proof — Plaintiff succeeding on strength of own case — Circumstantial evidence — Inference from proved facts — Difference between legitimate inference and conjecture — Failure to identify wrongdoer — Documentary evidence — Contemporaneous records — Computer-generated documents — Section 90A Evidence Act 1950 — Admissibility of inspection photographs — Certificate under section 90A(2) — Primary and secondary evidence — Integrity of physical exhibits — Chain of custody — Weight of evidence. 1 case
Admissions — Statements made by company director in separate proceedings — Whether binding admissions against company — Representative capacity — Evidential weight. 1 case
Affidavit evidence — Conflicting factual accounts — Whether court may resolve competing evidence on preliminary issue. 1 case
Matrimonial proceedings — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Failure to disclose assets — Adverse inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950. 1 case
Affidavit evidence — Audio recordings — Police report — Credibility — Whether disputed evidence capable of determination without trial. 1 case
Documentary evidence — Police report — Exhibit P11 — Complainant's police report stated that accused asked for permission to touch for treatment purposes and complainant allowed — Whether report contradicted complainant's oral testimony — Whether report supported accused's defence — Section 7 Evidence Act 1950 1 case
Witnesses — Prosecution witness — SP4 — Witness present throughout treatment — Witness confirmed consent was given — Witness confirmed same treatment method used on her daughter with positive results — Whether evidence of prosecution witness could support accused's defence — Credibility of witness 1 case
Proof of service — Registered-post receipts — Tracking records — Statutory declaration of service — Whether sufficient to establish posting and deemed service. 1 case
Admissions — Signed loan agreement — Statutory declaration — Borrower’s acknowledgment of receipt of RM180,000 — Whether admission against interest constitutes substantive evidence of indebtedness — Effect of admissions on evidential burden of proof — Evidence Act 1950, ss 17, 18, 21. 1 case
Statutory declaration — Evidential value — Commissioner for Oaths — Alleged failure to explain contents of declaration — Non-compliance with Commissioners for Oaths Rules 2018 — Whether declaration rendered void or inadmissible — Whether signed acknowledgment remained admissible as admission notwithstanding procedural irregularity. 1 case
Admissions — Statutory declaration — First-person acknowledgment of receipt of money — Whether admissible independently of validity of jurat or attestation process — Evidence Act 1950, ss 17, 18, 21. 1 case
Credibility — Borrower advancing inconsistent defences — Denial of signature — Admission of signature — Alleged deception — Partial repayment — Whether shifting and contradictory accounts undermined credibility. 1 case
Adverse inference — Failure to call witnesses to cash transactions — Whether adverse inference should be drawn against lender — Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g). 1 case
Admissions — Emails originating from company’s admitted email account — Whether admissible as admissions under Evidence Act 1950 — Whether hearsay rule applicable — Sections 17–21 Evidence Act 1950. 1 case
Admission — Taxpayer’s contemporaneous correspondence — Statement acknowledging claims made without GST due to perceived exemption — Whether admission inconsistent with alleged joint venture relationship — Evidence Act 1950, s 58. 1 case
Audio recording — Audio transcription — Objection to adducing recording and transcription at trial — Recording and transcription exhibited to affidavit not expunged by earlier court order — Whether interlocutory order expunging affidavit operated to exclude recording and transcription from trial — Whether admissibility, authenticity and weight matters for trial court — Evidence Act 1950, ss 3, 62, 90A 1 case
Documentary evidence — Computer-generated document — Audio recording transferred to computer and copied onto DVD — Requirement of authentication and statutory foundation — Whether admissibility to be determined at trial — Evidence Act 1950, s 90A 1 case
Covert recording — Recording made without consent — Whether lack of consent rendered recording inadmissible — Whether issue of admissibility to be determined at trial 1 case
Affidavit Evidence — Uncontroverted evidence — Weight to be attached to uncontested affidavits — Court’s continuing obligation to evaluate evidence notwithstanding absence of dispute. 1 case
Hearsay — Statements allegedly made by deceased witnesses to investigating officer — Non-production of statements recorded under s 112 Criminal Procedure Code — Whether investigating officer's evidence admissible to prove ownership of bag containing drugs. 1 case
Contradiction of witnesses — Investigating officer testifying that occupants of house identified bag as belonging to accused — Prosecution witness testifying she never saw accused carrying bag and first saw bag at police station — Whether contradiction material. 1 case
Fingerprint analysis — Failure to conduct or produce forensic examination of exhibits — Circumstantial case depending on inference of possession — Whether omission materially weakened prosecution case. 1 case
Key Statutes
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 227 cases Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 49 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 48 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 45 cases Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 40 cases Evidence Act
cited in 37 cases Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 21 cases Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
cited in 18 cases National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 15 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 14 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 11 cases Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 10 cases Evidence Enactment
cited in 8 cases Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
cited in 7 cases Poisons Act 1952 (Cap 366)
cited in 7 cases Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Azmi bin Ariffin 50 Azman bin Abdullah 46 Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff 42 Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan 35 John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee 32 Noorin binti Badaruddin 28 Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad 22 Hazizah binti Kassim 21 Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim 21 Noradura binti Hamzah 19 Elaine Yap Chin Gaik 15 Moh Kok Wai 14 Roszianayati binti Ahmad 14 Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan 14 Hashim bin Hamzah 13
Top Firms
Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor 12 Jabatan Peguam Negara 11 Othman Hashim & Co 8 Rafaei & Co. 7 Shearn Delamore & Co. 6 Kamar Peguam Negara 6 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kedah 6 Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc 6 Salehuddin Saidin & Associates 5 Azmi & Associates 5 Murugesan Sinnandavar & Association 5 Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri 5 Skrine 5 Sharonpal Singh & Associates 5 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu 4
Top Lawyers
Noor Farhana binti Adham 10 S. Murugesan 6 Afifuddin bin Ahmad Hafifi 6 Noorhisham Bin Mohd Jaafar 6 Aznika Binti Mohd Anas 6 Tulaila Binti Jamaludin 6 Mariah Binti Omar 6 Mohammad Rafaei Bin Adnan 6 Muhammad Syahri Bin Adnan 6 Rajenthira Kumar 5 Mohamad Arif Aizuddin Masrom 5 Kee Wei Lon 5 Sharonpal Singh 5 Mohd. Fuad bin Abdul Aziz 4 Ghazali Bin Ismail 4
How many Evidence cases are reported in Malaysia courts?
589 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Evidence.
What does the Evidence area cover?
It covers admissibility, weight and proof under the Evidence Act 1950 across both civil and criminal cases: documentary proof and forgery, the burden of proving authenticity, statutory presumptions, corroboration, and the treatment of computer-generated documents under section 90A.
How do the courts treat corroboration?
The judgments explain that corroboration is not confined to the independent oral evidence of a witness. Circumstantial evidence can itself amount to corroboration where the circumstances, taken together, point in the direction required to support the primary evidence.
Why does Evidence overlap with so many other areas?
Because proof is common to every dispute, evidential reasoning attaches to contract, land, tort and criminal matters alike. A case may appear under Evidence and under its substantive area at the same time whenever the outcome depends on what could be admitted and how much weight it was given.
Cases
Page 7 of 24ba-22ncvc-299-08-2021
1. ) NG SOCK FOON 2. ) LIM KIM KEANG 3. ) YEN JEAN SIANG 4. ) LEE SUVEN 5. ) KONG LAI HOONG 6. ) LEE JIA MIN 7. ) ADINO GIAM LIP GHEE 8. ) PREM KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 9. ) PRAKASH KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 10. ) NAVANITHAN A/L RADZAKRISNAN 11. ) SUMATHI A/P JEYABALAN 12. ) GOH SWEE GAIK 13. ) PUA WUI LOON 14. ) CHENG CHUAN TEE 15. ) LIM JIT SHEN 16. ) GABRIEL LIM FANG YIH 17. ) CHAN PEI SAN 18. ) TANG WAI CHAN 19. ) BEH LEE WEN 20. ) TAN CHEE KAH 21. ) CHUA YEE NARD 22. ) CHAI EU JIN 23. ) NANTHIKESVR...
12 February 2026
MYHC
wa-12bncc-14-06-2025
CHAN CHEAN GAIK v ELEGANCE CLUB SDN. BHD.
11 February 2026
MYHC
wa-22ncc-389-06-2025
BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN SDN BHD v 1. ) SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD 2. ) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD
8 February 2026
MYHC
ba-12bncc-9-05-2025
THT TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD v PLASMA MATRIK SDN BHD
5 February 2026
MYHC
ja-12ancvc-1-01-2025
MAGESWARAN A/L NADARAJAH v 1. ) SARASVATHY A/P ANTHONY DASS 2. ) LAKSHMANAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN
4 February 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-64-04-2022
Pendakwa Raya v JAILANI BIN SARIPAN
4 February 2026
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-45-02-2024
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD v GAN KIM HUE
3 February 2026
MYHC
ja-45a-35-04-2021
Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) PRAKASH A/L RENGANATHAN 2. ) SURESH A/L SUNDARAMOKAN 3. ) NAVENTHRAN PATHAR A/L ARUMUGAM 4. ) VIKNESVARAN A/L RAJANDHARAN 5. ) Arul A/l Marimuthu - Telah Dnaa
3 February 2026
MYHC
ka-22ncvc-12-03-2023
1. ) Chek Zaharah Binti Awang 2. ) NOOR AZIAH BINTI ABDUL KARIM v 1. ) Yahaya Bin Baharom Wakil Di Sisi Undang-undang Harta Pusaka Puan Binti Saman 2. ) YAHAYA BIN BAHAROM 3. ) ZAKARIA BIN BAHAROM 4. ) Yahaya Bin Baharom (Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Osman Bin Bahar) 5. ) Yahaya Bin Baharom (Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Ahmad Bin Awang Kechik) 6. ) Yahaya Bin Baharom (Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Kaltum Binti Saad) 7. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Yan
2 February 2026
MYHC
wa-22ncc-576-08-2023
CONAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY BERHAD v 1. ) VQUEST SDN BHD 2. ) WEE SOON HING
2 February 2026
MYHC
ka-22ncvc-21-06-2023
FAIZAL BIN ZAINAL RASHID v 1. ) KEDAH AGRO HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) SHUBERT DELOS REYES ANCHETA 3. ) Ahmad Qusyairi Bin Ahmad Zaini
1 February 2026
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-102-07-2024
YEOH JIN AIK v 1. ) TAN JIN KEAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD PENCELAH BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA
29 January 2026
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-344-09-2021
MURUGAPPAN TAMIL SELVI v MOGANA A/P SIVARAMAN PIHAK TERKILAN M. R Alagu Ganeshan A/l Murugappan
28 January 2026
MYHC
ja-24ncvc-953-07-2025
MAZNAH BINTI IBRAHIM v 1. ) HELMI BIN RASHID 2. ) HALIMAH BINTI ABU SAMAH
28 January 2026
MYHC
ja-41lba-3-06-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHD NAJIB BIN MOHAMED SIDEK
28 January 2026
MYHC
ta-12b-13-07-2025
1. ) Muhammad Faris Alimi Bin Amran 2. ) MUHAMAD SHAZRUL HAFIZ BIN MOHD SAIDI 3. ) Wan Nohamad Hakim Fikri Bin W Hussin 4. ) Nuramalina Binti Mohamed Zainuddin v 1. ) ASMIZA BINTI MUSA 2. ) Zamrifaizal Bin Dzuaini ( Didakwa Sebagai Wakil Diri Kepada Si Mati, Rosli Bin Abdul Haq)
28 January 2026
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-232-06-2023
NAJD AL-ATHEER TRADING CO v BIOMAX RESOURCES SDN BHD
27 January 2026
MYHC
ta-12bncvc-3-06-2025
MANAF BIN BEDO v LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD
27 January 2026
MYHC
ba-12bncc-15-10-2025
1. ) CHIN KIM HEONG 2. ) GALAXY ANALYTICA SDN BHD v BETATECH SCIENTIFIC SDN BHD
26 January 2026
MYHC
ca-42jsks-6-04-2024
ABU BAKAR BIN JUSOH v Pendakwa Raya
26 January 2026
MYHC
da-41sa-6-11-2024
AZIZAN BIN ABD RAHMAN v Pendakwa Raya
26 January 2026
MYHC
ta-12b-7-04-2025
1. ) RAZLEEN BINTI AWANG (Menuntut sebagai balu yang sah kepada Mohd Amin Bin Ibrahim (simati), untuk gantirugi kesedihan, kehilangan tanggungan dan kerugian perbelanjaan di bawah Seksyen 7 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956 (Pindaan) 2. ) XXXX v 1. ) ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI TERENGGANU
26 January 2026
MYHC
ta-12b-8-04-2025
1. ) Nur Zafirah binti Bazaredi 2. ) Norliza binti Mat Hassan v 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Terengganu 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) Roadcare (M) Sdn. Bhd.
26 January 2026
MYHC
ja-12b-69-11-2023
KIRUBAKARAN A/L MUNIANDY v 1. ) NADRAJAN A/L CHEN CHIAH 2. ) SUGUMARAN A/L KRISHNAN 3. ) AM GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD
22 January 2026
MYHC
ja-22ncvc-4-01-2020
MULTI MERIDIAN SDN BHD v ISKANDAR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IRDA)
22 January 2026
MYHC