Thiagarajan a/l Raman v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Thiagarajan A/L Raman

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court for drug trafficking under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) and possession under Section 12(2) of the same Act.
• The prosecution’s case was based on a raid at a premises where the appellant was allegedly found in the act of packaging heroin and other substances.
• The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was at the location for a job interview and was framed by the police officers involved in the raid.

• Whether the alleged material contradictions in the testimony of the arresting officer (the third prosecution witness) regarding the police reports and the physical circumstances of the raid undermined the prosecution's case.
• Whether the prosecution successfully established the elements of possession and control over the drugs, given the appellant's claim that the premises were accessible to third parties.
• Whether the trial judge erred in his evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, particularly concerning the "audio-visual" advantage of the primary trier of fact.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged contradictions were not material and were sufficiently explained by the witness and accepted by the trial judge.
• The Court affirmed that possession in criminal law does not require "exclusive possession," but rather the power to deal with the drugs as an owner with the necessary *animus possidendi*, which was proven by the appellant’s conduct during the raid.
• The Court reiterated that an appellate court will not interfere with the findings of fact of a trial judge unless the decision is plainly wrong or there is insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence, neither of which was found in this case.