Ranjith Singh a/l Mahindar Singh v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Ranjith Singh A/l Mahindar Singh

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 224.8 grams of Methamphetamine.
• The High Court found the appellant guilty, convicted him, and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment, leading to this appeal against conviction and sentence.
• The prosecution's case was that police observed the appellant leaving a house carrying a bundle of jackets, in which two packets of methamphetamine were found, leading to his arrest.

• Whether the High Court Judge erred in finding no three different versions of the appellant's arrest location, which the appellant argued created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
• Whether the prosecution failed to establish the element of possession by not excluding other people's access to the house where the drugs were allegedly found.
• Whether an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn against the prosecution for not calling other raiding officers to corroborate the main prosecution witness's evidence.

• The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence by the High Court.
• The Court found that any discrepancies in the exact marking of the arrest location on the sketch plan were minor inconsistencies and did not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, as all evidence consistently showed the appellant was arrested outside the house with the drugs.
• The Court held that the drugs were found in the appellant's physical possession, wrapped in a jacket he was holding, which satisfied the criteria for possession and rendered the issue of access to the unoccupied house irrelevant.
• The Court found no basis to invoke Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, as the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were consistent with documentary evidence and credible, establishing the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.