DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

In any event, we do not think such contradiction, if any, had
affected the credibility of PW4. The learned trial judge had
ruled that PW4 was a credible witness. The learned trial
judge heard the testimony of PW4 and had seen him. He
had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of PW4. It is
for the learned trial judge to determine which part of the
evidence of PW4 he is to accept and which to reject (see Lai
Kin Hon & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 84).
The Appellants’ Defence
[58] Learned counsel for the first appellant submitted that the
learned trial judge had erred when he ruled that the defence
of all the appellants was a bare denial of the prosecution
evidence connecting all of them with the cannabis contained
in the boot of the car. According to learned counsel the first
appellant had given a reasonable explanation to the
prosecution’s case and as such it is not correct to say that
the evidence of the first appellant was only one of denial. In
the instant case the first appellant had explained about the 3
boxes which later found to contained the proscribed drugs.
The first appellant was under the impression that the 3
boxes contained cigarettes only.
Page 26 of 31