Kaidal bin Sahidin v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Kaidal Bin Sahidin

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court for trafficking 207.73 grams of Methamphetamine under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping.
• Police, acting on a tip-off, stopped the appellant's vehicle, where he was found alone and, after being cautioned, handed over a black plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs.
• The appellant denied knowledge of the drugs, claiming he was merely driving for a third party named Habib and that the police investigation was incomplete for failing to call Habib as a witness.

• Whether the High Court erred in relying on the arresting officer's (PW6) evidence regarding the appellant's possession and knowledge of the drugs, particularly concerning the administration of caution and the voluntary handover.
• Whether the High Court correctly evaluated the corroborative evidence for PW6's testimony, considering the legal principles on corroboration and the admissibility of police reports/search lists.
• Whether an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should have been drawn against the prosecution for not calling a third party, Habib, as a witness.

• The Court affirmed the High Court's reliance on the arresting officer's (PW6) testimony, holding that the defence's failure to challenge crucial aspects of his evidence during cross-examination amounted to acceptance.
• The Court ruled that PW6's evidence on possession was sufficiently corroborated by the unchallenged fact that the appellant was alone in the vehicle and in close proximity to the drugs, clarifying that police reports are not independent corroborative evidence under Section 73A(7) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• The Court found no error in the High Court's refusal to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, as the third party was not deemed a material witness given the sufficiency of other prosecution evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.