Mohd Musnizam bin Musa v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Mohd Musnizam Bin Musa

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was charged and convicted by the High Court for drug trafficking and possession across two separate incidents: a roadside arrest involving a motorcycle and a subsequent search of a luxury apartment unit.
• During the roadside arrest, the police allegedly discovered dangerous drugs in a motorcycle basket, while the apartment search yielded further drugs in a locked bedroom to which the appellant held the keys and access card.
• The High Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and whipping for the trafficking charges, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the safety of the convictions and the evaluation of evidence.

• Whether a material discrepancy in the testimony of the arresting officer regarding the identity of the motorcycle where the drugs were found, combined with the failure to call a material witness, necessitated an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the appellant's conduct in resisting arrest and attempting to flee was sufficient to establish the element of "knowledge" under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 in the absence of clear evidence linking him to the exhibits.
• Whether the prosecution is legally required to produce forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, to prove possession when circumstantial evidence of control and custody is present.

• The Court allowed the appeal regarding the roadside arrest (Appeal 650), finding that the arresting officer’s conflicting testimony as to which motorcycle contained the drugs created a material gap in the prosecution's case that rendered the conviction unsafe.
• The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the apartment search (Appeal 9), ruling that the appellant’s possession of the keys and access card, coupled with the tenancy agreement in his name, sufficiently established custody and control over the drugs found therein.
• The Court clarified that forensic evidence is merely corroborative and its absence does not weaken the prosecution's case if possession is otherwise established through the appellant’s "pointing out" of the location and exclusive access to the premises.