Mohammad Zulfikar Supiyandi bin Kassim v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Mohammad Zulfikar Supiyandi Bin Kasmin

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was convicted under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 549.68 grams of Methamphetamine and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping.
• The arresting officer testified that after surveillance, he apprehended the appellant carrying a backpack containing the drugs and the appellant's passport, while the appellant claimed the backpack was found on the roadside and was not his.
• The trial judge found a prima facie case based on the arresting officer's evidence, invoked the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the DDA, and rejected the appellant's defence as failing to raise a reasonable doubt.

• Whether the sole testimony of the arresting officer, without corroboration from other raiding team members, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
• Whether there was a break in the chain of evidence regarding the custody and handling of the drug exhibits between seizure and chemical analysis.
• Whether the trial judge erred in law by applying a "convincing" or "believable" test to the defence's evidence instead of the correct reasonable doubt standard.

• The Court held that under section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950, a single credible witness's testimony suffices to prove a fact, and found the arresting officer's evidence consistent and reliable on all material aspects of the arrest and discovery of drugs.
• The Court found no break in the chain of evidence, noting that the defence had failed to cross-examine the investigating officer on the handling of exhibits at trial, thereby precluding the issue from being raised for the first time on appeal.
• The Court held that the trial judge's use of the term "not convincing" merely reflected an assessment of the quality of the defence's evidence in failing to raise a reasonable doubt, and did not amount to a wrongful application of a higher standard of proof; the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.