7.

Apakah fakta relevan dalam kes Kok Ho Leng v Public Prosecutor [1941] 1 MLJ 143
berkaitan Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950?

Whether a telephone message to the premises during the raid was admissible in evidence. In an
unreported case Mr J Howes held that such a message was not admissible. I personally am inclined
to think that it is admissible under two sections: 6 which is the section which deals with what are
known as "res gestae" in England. I think that a telephone message has some analogy to the
shouting of the by-standers; further in view of the subsequent cutting of the wire I think that the
telephone message may be relevant under s 7.

8. Apakah fakta relevan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Toh Kee Huat [1965] 1 MLJ 76
berkaitan Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950?

At any rate, the weight of evidence of finger-prints can never be decried. The respondent's finger-
print was found on the inside surface of the glass. The mark could not have been made there except
after someone (if not himself) had unlawfully tampered with the locked car to gain entry. That
finger-print could only have been made during the hours of darkness when the car was taken, or
before its discovery next morning. The position of the mark alone makes it self-evident that it was
not made by a casual passerby.

9. Apakah fakta relevan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Haniff Basree bin Abdul Rahim
berkaitan Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950?

In PP v Hanif Basree bin Abdul Rahman, DNA evidence has been debated until the apex court. The
issue involved is whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the deceased. The vaginal swab
of deceased revealed there accused was the major contributor for the seminal stain compared to tan
unknown male. The court held that PP failed to prove that accused was the last person that had
sexual intercourse with the deceased as the unknown man person also highly probable to the actual
offender. The court referred to the DNA evidence found in the materials used to tie knots around
deceased feet after the death. Therefore, DNA of accused could not be the conclusive evidence on
convicting accused.

10. Apakah fakta relevan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkaitan
Seksyen 7 Akta Keterangan 1950?

1. As I have repeatedly stressed the truth or falsity of the allegations made by Ummi is not
relevant. What is relevant is the fact that she had made the allegations. Thus the motives,
interest or conduct of Ummi in making the allegations are irrelevant. Accordingly, the facts
whether she has been disowned by her father or not; whether she has sold her father's
Mercedes Benz motor car or not; whether she is heavily indebted or not; or whether her
 brother Azmin has bribed her father in order to disown her are not relevant to the issues
before the court and the answers she gave in reply to the questions in issue must be taken as
final and cannot be contradicted. They are matters which the defence itself would not be
permitted to adduce in evidence in support of its case as they have no connection with the
facts in issue and are therefore irrelevant. If it were otherwise the court will be embarking
on the unnecessary task of resolving the family dispute between Ummi and Azmin.

2. In making a ruling I took two factors into consideration. Firstly, on the statement by
learned counsel himself the tapes have nothing to do with the fact of the making of the
allegations by Ummi. The material parts of the conversation had already been put to Ummi
in the course of the case for the prosecution when she was cross-examined. They relate to
Buku 50 Dalil, Ummi's hatred of the accused and some mention of money. She denied them
and said that she cannot remember some parts of the conversation. These matters are not
relevant to the facts in issue in this case with regard to the making of the allegations by her.
Her answers of denial cannot therefore be contradicted pursuant to s. 153 of the Evidence
Act 1950 which I have discussed earlier. Secondly, Nor Azman's evidence indicated that the
tapes have been tampered with on the instructions of the accused. The conversation in the
four tapes sought to be admitted is therefore not an accurate account of what actually
transpired between the parties. In addition the fact that the original seven tapes were burnt
and not retained is in itself a suspicious circumstance and casts serious doubts on the
authenticity of the edited four tapes. As I said in Mohd Ali Jaafar V. Pp [1998] 4 BLJ 208if
there is no evidence to show that a taped conversation is an accurate account of a
conversation that occurred, then it is not admissible.
Accordingly, I disallowed the application to play the tapes with a view to them being
admitted in evidence.

11. Seksyen 7 berkaitan dengan keterangan bersandarkan keadaan (circumstantial evidence).

Apakah prinsip yang dibangkitkan dalam kes Chan Chwen Kong v. Public Prosecutor [1962]
1 MLJ 307 berkaitan keterangan bersandarkan keadaan?

That evidence was entirely circumstantial and what the criticism of it amounts to is this, that no
single piece of that evidence is strong enough to sustain the convictions. That is very true. It must,
however, be borne in mind that in cases like this where the evidence is wholly circumstantial what
has to be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of evidence but also the
combined strength of these strands when twisted together to make a rope. The real question is: is
that rope strong enough to hang the prisoner?

....In the case of Murtagh and Kennedy 39 Cr App R 72. There it was said that the case was one
where it had been essential for the Judge to make it clear to the jury what were three possible
positions in which they might find themselves "bearing in mind throughout that it was not for the
accused to establish their innocence". One of these positions was that if they accepted the
explanation of the accused they must acquit. The second was that if that explanation "left them in
doubt they must acquit". The third was that on the whole of the evidence they must be satisfied of
the guilt of the accused.
In other words the test is not: "is the defence evidence consistent with the truth?", whatever that
may mean, but does it leave the jury in doubt as to the guilt of the accused person? If the answer to
that question be "yes" the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted.

The real question in the case was not whether the witnesses were to be believed but whetherthe
various circumstances to which they spoke pointed irresistibly in one direction and one direction
only, that direction being the guilt of the prisoner. The evidence was discussed at great length and
with substantial accuracy by the trial Judge in his charge. We ourselves have read the evidence. We
have read it with care and we have come to the conclusion that we can say that had the jury been
properly directed they would, and here I return to quote the words of Lord Sankey, "have inevitably
come to the same conclusion" that is that the prisoner was guilty of both the murders for which he
was tried.