Akahimo / Akanimo v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Akahimo / Akanimo

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

• The appellant and three others were charged with trafficking 24,753 grams of methamphetamine under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA 1952), read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
• The High Court found a prima facie case against the appellant and the fourth accused, calling for their defence, while acquitting the second and third accused.
• At the close of the defence case, the fourth accused was acquitted, but the appellant was found guilty, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment (30 years) and 16 strokes of the cane, leading to the present appeal.

• Whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's custody, control, and knowledge of the dangerous drugs to invoke the presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) DDA 1952.
• Whether there was a fatal break in the chain of evidence concerning the drug exhibits' handling and submission for chemical analysis, thereby creating reasonable doubt.
• Whether the trial judge erred in not drawing adverse inferences against the prosecution for failing to produce the full CCTV footage and call the Perodua Bezza's renter as a witness, pursuant to Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court found that the appellant's cautioned statement (D45) explicitly admitted knowledge of the drugs, and his conduct (dropping the box and attempting to flee) further demonstrated such knowledge, thus upholding the High Court's finding that the presumption under Section 37(da) DDA 1952 was not rebutted.
• The Court rejected the argument of a broken chain of evidence, noting the lack of challenge during cross-examination regarding the four-day gap and finding the explanation for the replacement of the original, damaged packaging reasonable and non-prejudicial.
• The Court held that the CCTV footage was not material as it did not clearly capture the entire incident, and the uncalled witness (Perodua Bezza's renter) was not crucial given the appellant's admissions, thus no adverse inference under Section 114(g) was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.