SUBMISSION
1. Inaz (alibi)
2. mas
3. Kaisya
4. Kaisya
5. Adi
6. Inaz (Breach of Marry money)
1. Denied for driving on the said day and having access to grab apps.
EXAMPLE: However, both denied going out during the period from 20 April 2007 till 29 April
2007 as, according to the first appellant, they were not the registered owner for grab application,
it is impossible for their names to be easily appeared on the app. Both put up the defence of alibi
and contended that the perpetrator of the crimes was most probably “someone else/or their
friends” because during the material period someone else/tuduh la siapa2 party dlm tu yang dia
had access to grab application.
2. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case was insufficient
to establish a prima facie case for the offence charged.
There were too many flaws which created doubts in this case. The benefit of the doubts should
be given to all these five accused persons. This court had applied the maximum evaluation test
on the evidence adduced by the prosecution before reaching to the above findings. The
prosecution had failed to prove a case against the five accused persons on the charge preferred
against them or for any other offence against any of them at the close of the prosecution's case
either by direct or circumstantial evidence.
EXHIBIT
1. Inaz
2.
3.
4. Inaz
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Inaz