rayuan jenayah no. b-05-18-2009 antara faisal bin abd. aziz

discovery rebuts the presumption of falsity arising from
the probability of it being made as a result of inducement
or pressure (see PP v Toh An Kiat [1977] 2 MLJ 78).
In the case of Roslan Abdullah v PP [2010] 1 CLJ
685, that was relied upon by Counsel for the Appellant,
the facts pertaining to the information are different from
that in the present Appeal. In that case the alleged
information was recorded hours after it was given and the
accused was “arrested miles away from the house where
the drugs were later found in a door-less bedroom.”.
It must be emphasized that the information (by way
of pointing to a particular spot of bushes) given by the
Appellant was made spontaneously to the question posed
by SP3. It was not made after a long series of
interrogation, of which even if it is so, such information is
admissible as so long as it leads to the discovery of the
subject-matter of the offence. This was so held by Raja
Azlan Shah J (as he then was) in PP v Er Ah Kiat [1966]
1 MLJ 9; where he held that: “In my opinion the fact of
discovery of … lends colour to the truth of the statement.”
In that case the accused’s information was by way of
pointing to the spot where a hand-grenade was buried.
On this issue, the learned trial Judge, based on the
evidence before him had correctly ruled that the
15