RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: N-05-154-2010

In support of the first ground, learned counsel argued that the
trial judge erred in holding the appellant’s defence as an afterthought
and a bare denial. Counsel submitted that the trial judge has erred in
failing to appreciate that the appellant in his defence has challenged
the prosecution’s version of events that took place in the house. The
appellant further complained of the trial judge’s comment on the
defence failure to call a certain witness and in invoking section 114(g)
of the Evidence Act against him.
The appellant’s challenge on the prosecution’s version of
events that took place was taken during the cross-examination of SP5,
SP7 and SP8. In his written submission, learned counsel has referred
to us the specific challenges made to these witnesses as follows:
“Challenges by the appellant on SP5’s evidence:
(i) At pg 25 of the Appeal Record
“S: Bila masuk bilik itu awak terus arah anggota gelidah
bilik itu.
J: Tak setuju.”
(ii) At pg 27 of the Appeal Record
“S: Saya katakan kepada awak barang salah yang dikata
diserah oleh OKT sebenarnya barang salah yang
dijumpai hasil penggelidahan dalam rumah
khususnya dalam bilik tersebut.
J: Tak setuju.”
5