Mohd Sahari bin Suboh v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Mohd Sahari Bin Suboh

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was charged with two counts of drug trafficking under section 39B(1) ADB (heroin and monoacetylmorphines) and one count of possession under section 12(2) ADB (PMMA), following a police raid on a house where he was found alone in a bedroom with the drugs.
• The prosecution's case rested on evidence that only the appellant occupied the room, supported by testimony from his mother, the discovery of his personal bank passbook near the drugs, and a large sum of cash found in the room.
• The defence case shifted between two versions: initially suggesting the drugs belonged to the appellant's brother (who was allegedly arrested earlier), and later claiming the drugs were actually found in the boot of a car parked outside, a version corroborated by family witnesses but never put to the raiding police officers during cross-examination.
• The High Court convicted the appellant on all charges, invoking the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) ADB for the first two charges, and sentenced him to life imprisonment with whipping and a concurrent 5-year term for possession.

• Whether the trial court erred in accepting the credibility of the raiding police officers' evidence despite alleged contradictions regarding the timing of the brother's arrest.
• Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the evidence of the appellant's family members (interested witnesses) supporting the "car boot" defence, and whether such evidence deserved greater weight given they were originally prosecution witnesses offered to the defence.
• Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of putting his defence version to the relevant prosecution witnesses at the appropriate stage, and the legal consequence of failing to do so.

• The Court held that absent any demonstrated motive for the police witnesses to fabricate evidence, and given the presence of multiple family members during the raid, the trial judge was entitled to accept the credibility of the police officers' testimony over inconsistent defence accounts.
• The Court affirmed that interested witnesses' evidence is not automatically inadmissible, but the trial judge was entitled to find the family witnesses' testimony unreliable given inconsistencies between their accounts and the shifting nature of the defence (first blaming the brother, then alleging the drugs were in a car boot).
• The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the appellant, noting that the "car boot" defence was never put to the two key raiding officers (only to the investigating officer), which was fatal to its credibility, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence under all three charges.