Khabir bin Khalid v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Khabir Bin Khalid

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Ahmad Shahrir B. Mohd Salleh

• The appellant was charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking in 56.95 grams of Methamphetamine, allegedly found in a bag slung on his body when he and a companion were apprehended during a police ambush operation.
• The prosecution's case rested substantially on the single eyewitness testimony of the raiding officer (SP4), who testified that the appellant was seen exiting the driver's side of a car carrying the bag containing the drugs, while a companion (who was separately charged under section 12(2) for mere possession) was found with similar drugs in his trouser pocket.
• The defence case was that the drug-laden bag was actually found inside the car (under the passenger seat) rather than on the appellant's body, and raised allegations that the appellant may have been framed either by the police or by the registered owner of the car who had allegedly asked him to use the vehicle.
• The High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment (30 years) and 15 strokes of whipping, having found the defence's evidence inconsistent and lacking credibility, and accepted the prosecution's narrative supported by the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Act.

• Whether the uncorroborated single testimony of the police witness (SP4) was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, despite the defence's competing version of events.
• Whether the prosecution's failure to call the registered owner of the vehicle as a witness, and the absence of DNA, fingerprint, or CCTV evidence, was fatal to the prosecution's case or gave rise to an adverse inference.
• Whether the trial court erred in its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, including the defence witness (the companion) and the appellant, particularly regarding inconsistencies between the defence version presented during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses versus the defence case itself.

• The Court held that the law does not require corroboration of a single witness's testimony (citing section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950), and that the trial judge was entitled to accept the evidence of the police witness where it was not inherently improbable and remained unshaken despite cross-examination.
• The Court found no basis to disturb the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, noting the trial judge had the benefit of observing witnesses firsthand, and appellate courts should be slow to interfere absent substantial and compelling reasons.
• The Court held that since the drugs were found on the appellant's body (not concealed in the car), there was no need for the prosecution to call the car's registered owner to exclude his access to the vehicle, and the absence of DNA/fingerprint/CCTV evidence did not necessarily favour the appellant; the appeal against conviction and sentence was accordingly dismissed unanimously.