BE
AWARE AND READ …..
THE
LAW
It is unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated
testimony of the person on whom the offence is said to have been committed
unless for any reason that testimony is of special weight, When the case for
the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution
has made out a prima facie case against the accused.
Corroboration means support or
confirmation. “In relation to the law of evidence, it refers to any rule of law
or practice which requires that certain kinds of evidence be confirmed or
supported by other, independent evidence, in order to be sufficient to sustain
a given result.
This is at the close of the
prosecution case….. therefore the accused has not given any evidence. MANY A LITIGANT (PROSECUTION) HAS IGNORED THIS FUNDAMENTAL RULE, LEAVING UNCORROBORATED EVIDENCE HANGING…..
ISSUE 1
WHAT IF IT IS A CHILD OF TENDER YEARS
….
ISSUE 2
WHO TAKES CARE OF THE CHILD’S INTEREST ….
ISSUE 3
AT THE CLOSE OF THE PROSECUTION CARE, WHAT IS THE BURDEN …. PRIMA FACIE
THE QUANDARY …. The prosecution must prove a prima
facie case, at the end of the prosecution case itself and CORROBORATED evidence
…..
This equates DOOMSDAY for the Victim ….
Procedure after conclusion of
case for prosecution
180. (1) When the
case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the
prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.
(2) If the Court finds that the
prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the
Court shall record an order of acquittal.
(3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been
made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon
the accused to enter on his defence.
It is said that ‘it is unsafe to convict on the
uncorroborated testimony of the person on whom the offence is said to have been
committed unless for any reason that testimony is of special weight – see
Ganpart v. Emperor AIR 1918 Lah 322. See also Bal Mukundo Singh v.
Emperor (1937) 38 Cr LJ 70 (Cal).
http://doctrine-res-ipsa-loquitur.blogspot.com/2012/01/dalam-mahkamah-persekutuan-malaysia.htmlhttp://www.cljlaw.com/public/Anwar-PP1.html
Sodomy accused freed as no signs victim was
violated
January 31, 2012
SHAH ALAM, Jan 31 — The Sessions Court here
acquitted a primary school teacher of two counts of unnatural sex today, after
finding no medical signs that the victim was sodomised, Bernama Online
reported.
Badrul Akmal Ishak, 33, was earlier charged with
committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature, in Rantau Panjang,
Klang four years ago.
In his ruling today, Judge Slamat Yahya noted that
testimony by a chemist and two physicians during the course of the trial
indicated that there were no signs of anal penetration as alleged.
The chemist’s report also found no DNA evidence
linking Badrul to either the scene of the alleged crime or the victim.
Slamat further noted that the report was made by a
third party — the victim’s mother — based solely on a text message she had
discovered on her son’s mobile phone.
The case was prosecuted by deputy public prosecutor
Nurul Maisarah Kamaruddin, while Gerard Lazarus appeared for the accused.
http://www.sinarharian.com.my/jenayah/guru-bebas-pertuduhan-seks-luar-tabii-dengan-pelajar-1.21116
COMMENTARY
“based solely on a text message she had discovered
on her son’s mobile phone” ….
that testimony by a chemist and two physicians
during the course of the trial indicated that there were no signs of anal
penetration as alleged
no DNA evidence linking Badrul to either the scene
of the alleged crime or the victim
Therefore, A QUESTION OF CORROBORATION
WARTAWAN SINAR HARIAN
31 Januari 2012
SHAH ALAM - Seorang guru sekolah rendah
hari ini dibebaskan dan dilepaskan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen di sini daripada dua
pertuduhan melakukan hubungan seks luar tabii dengan seorang pelajar lelaki
sekolah menengah di sebuah rumah di Rantau Panjang, Klang, empat tahun lepas.
Hakim Slamat Yahya melepaskan dan
membebaskan Badrul Akmal Ishak, 33, tanpa memanggilnya membela diri selepas
mendapati pihak pendakwaan gagal menimbulkan kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan
mengikut Seksyen 377C dan Seksyen 377B Kanun
Keseksaan yang dikenakan terhadap
tertuduh.
Hakim itu berkata mahkamah mendapati
keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan terutama keterangan
mangsa sendiri bertentangan dengan keterangan sokongan khasnya keterangan ahli
kimia dan keterangan perubatan yang mengatakan tiada tanda-tanda mangsa
diliwat.
Hakim Slamat berkata pakar bedah, Dr
S. Manimaran, telah memberi keterangan bahawa tidak terdapat kesan luka pada
dubur mangsa manakala Dr Chan Swee Sing yang memeriksa mangsa, juga mendapati
tiada kesan atau tanda-tanda mangsa telah
diliwat.
Ahli kimia P.Revathi pula menyatakan
hanya DNA Badrul Akmal yang diambil daripada keratan kain dari biliknya, dan
tiada DNA mangsa didapati di atas katil atau dalam bilik tertuduh, kata Hakim
Slamat.
Beliau berkata kes itu berdasarkan
laporan polis yang dibuat oleh ibu mangsa yang telah membaca mesej pesanan
ringkas dalam telefon bimbit mangsa.
Badrul Akmal dituduh melakukan
kedua-dua kesalahan itu masing-masingnya pada 1 pagi dan 3 pagi 24 Ogos 2008 di
rumah No 53 Jalan Genting 5/KU 4 Taman Kembara 2, Rantau Panjang, Klang.
Pendakwaan dikendalikan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Nurul Maisarah Kamaruddin
manakala Badrul Akmal diwakili peguam bela, Gerard Lazarus.
Tertuduh yang terharu dengan
keputusan mahkamah memeluk Lazarus sambil menangis teresak-esak.
Jika sabit kesalahan dia boleh dipenjara sehingga 20 tahun
bagi setiap pertuduhan. –
COMMENTARY
Dr S. Manimaran, telah memberi keterangan bahawa tidak
terdapat kesan luka pada dubur mangsa manakala Dr Chan Swee Sing yang memeriksa
mangsa, juga mendapati tiada kesan atau tanda-tanda mangsa telah diliwat
Therefore, again A QUESTION OF
COROBORATION
