Undang-Undang

Keterangan
LIA
4007/LXEA4112
DR. JAL ZABDI MOHD YUSOFF
FAKULTI UNDANG-UNDANG
UNIVERSITI MALAYA
Anggapan

Definisi:
Anggapan merupakan satu kekecualian kepada prinsip am bahawa pihak
yang menegaskan sesuatu fakta harus membuktikan kewujudan fakta
berkenaan. Apabila kewujudan sesuatu fakta dibenarkan untuk dianggap,
maka beban pembuktian yang terletak ke atas pihak yang
menegaskannya akan terlepas.

Sir James Stephen

‘ A rule of law that court and judges shall draw a particular inference from a
particular fact, or from a particular evidence, unless and until the trusth of
such is disproved’
ABDULLAH ATAN v. PP & OTHER
APPEALS [2020] 9 CLJ 151 (FC)
[43]Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its context and legislative purpose. By
so doing, the phrase "credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence" in s. 180(4)
means that the prosecution may prove each ingredient of the offence either:
 (i) by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient;
 (ii) by drawing inferences of fact, ie, adducing credible circumstantial evidence, from
which the ingredient can be inferred; or
 (iii) by invoking presumptions of law, ie, adducing credible evidence of the relevant basic
facts, to invoke a statutory presumption that the ingredient exists.
ABDULLAH ATAN v. PP & OTHER
APPEALS [2020] 9 CLJ 151
Indeed, a presumption is not evidence; rather, it is a rule of evidence stating how a
particular fact can be proved, as supported by the following authorities:
 A presumption has no probative value and is not evidence, being nothing more
than a rule of law which assists a party in making out a prima facie case" (see
Michigan Law Review, "Presumptions as Evidence in Criminal Cases " at 504);
 Presumptions are a special mode of proving facts which must otherwise be proved
by evidence. Where there is direct evidence to prove the presumed facts, the
presumptions do not need to be applied (see PP v. Chia Leong Foo [2000] 4 CLJ
649 at 668
ABDULLAH ATAN v. PP & OTHER
APPEALS [2020] 9 CLJ 151
Presumptions of fact and law operate in every legal system. The use of presumptions
has always been standard judicial practice. This court has endorsed the use of the
presumption in s. 37(da) of the DDA by the prosecution to establish a prima facie
case of drug trafficking. What is required of the prosecution is to adduce credible
evidence of the basic facts (ie, the nature and amount of the drug, and possession), in
order to rely on the presumption of trafficking in s. 37(da).
[48] In Muhammed Hassan v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 170; [1998] 2 MLJ 273, the issue
was whether at the close of the prosecution's case, the court, in a trafficking case,
could make a finding of 'custody and control' to presume possession and then on that
presumption, further presume trafficking. This court held that the use of presumption
over presumption was unduly harsh and oppressive. Nevertheless, it was
unanimously recognised that the presumption of trafficking may be invoked only
once a finding of actual possession is made.
PP v. ALUMA MARK CHINONSO
[2020] 1 LNS 584
[87] All presumptions stated in section 4 will not impinge on judicial power of the
court. Authors and book writers have divided the presumption into three categories,
namely - may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof. The one related to
conclusive proof is often referred to as irrebuttable presumption for the purpose of
learning but in fact it is not in relation to judicial power. A flow chart on presumption
under the Act will help to understand the relevant sections:-
Sir Fitzjames Stephen in 'Digest on Evidence' defines presumption to mean:-
"A rule of law that court and judges shall draw a particular inference
from a particular fact or from a particular evidence, unless and until the truth of
such disproved."

[See pages 115 to 120 - Janab's Key to The Law of Evidence, Advocacy
and Professional Ethics, (5th edn) Revised by Dato' Mah Weng Kwai, Arun
Kasi and Datuk Joy Appukuttan
Jenis-Jenis Anggapan

1. Anggapan tanpa fakta asas

Cth- Seseorang itu dianggap tidak bersalah sehingga
dibuktikan sebaliknya
2. Anggapan dengan fakta asas
Makna= perlu wujud fakta pertama sebelum mahkamah
boleh menganggap kewujudan fakta kedua
Seksyen 4(1) - Anggapan

(1) Bilamana diperuntukkan oleh Akta ini bahawa mahkamah boleh menganggap
sesuatu fakta, mahkamah boleh sama ada menyifatkan fakta itu sebagai terbukti
melainkan jika dan sehingga terbukti sebaliknya, atau boleh meminta buktinya.
(mahkamah boleh membuat anggapan fakta jika ia diperuntukkan dalam sesuatu
Akta. ) – Budi bicara diberikan kepada mahkamah untuk membuat anggapan.
Contoh: S.114 misalan (a)
Mahkamah boleh menganggap—
(a) bahawa seseorang yang ada dalam milikannya barang-barang curi selepas
sahaja barang-barang itu dicuri ialah pencuri barang-barang itu atau telah
menerima barang-barang itu dengan disedarinya sebagai barang-barang curi,
melainkan jika dia boleh menerangkan bagaimana barang itu berada dalam
milikannya;

Seksyen 86 – 90 dan seksyen 114

MOHAMED ALI v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1962] 1
LNS 99

 In drawing presumptions under s. 114 of the Evidence Ordinance, 1950, it is to be

observed that what the section says is that the existence of certain facts may be
presumed which the Court "thinks likely to have happened" in the circumstances
of the particular case. Presumptions of fact must not be drawn automatically, or,
as it were, by rule of thumb, without first considering whether in the
circumstances of each particular case there were adequate grounds to justify any
presumption being raised.
Seksyen 4(2) Akta Keterangan 1950

(2) Bilamana diarahkan oleh Akta ini bahawa mahkamah hendaklah menganggap sesuatu fakta,
mahkamah hendaklah menyifatkan fakta itu sebagai terbukti melainkan jika dan sehingga
terbukti sebaliknya.

Seksyen 4(2) AK memperuntukkan mengenai anggapan undang-undang yang boleh dipatahkan

atau rebuttable presumption of law.
Apabila undang-undang memperuntukkan bahawa anggapan perlu dibuat, maka mahkamah
hendaklah membuat anggapan.

Oleh itu, jika anggapan undang-undang yang boleh dipatahkan dibuat, maka pihak yang satu
lagi mempunyai beban untuk membuktikan sebaliknya. Kegagalan pihak tersebut untuk
mematahkan anggapan yang dibuat akan menyebabkan anggapan tersebut kekal. (iaitu fakta
yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwa akan disifatkan sebagai terbukti) . Lihat seksyen 105
AK. Seksyen2 lain 79, 80 – 85, 89, 105, 107, 108-111 AK.
PP vs V. Thomas (1959) Mad 166

 23. The term "shall be presumed" means that the Court is bound to take the fact as
proved until evidence is adduced to disprove it and the party interested in
disproving it must produce such evidence if he can. The word is explained in
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act as "Whenever it is directed under the
evidence Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as
proved, unless and until it is disproved"
 and a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the
Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so
probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case,
to act upon the supposition that it does not exist
PHRUEKSA TAEMCHIM (THAILAND)
v. PP [2013] 10 CLJ 1
Presumption of Law
 These are really rules of substantive law in disguise. Though they are often referred to as presumptions
they are actually rules of substantive law which affect the normal principles of burden and standard of
proof. For example, section 82 of the Penal Code states that nothing is an offence which is done by a
child under 10 years of age. Such conclusive presumption is also referred to as irrebuttable
presumption of law. Once the basic fact that the child is under 10 years old is proved, the fact that the
child can commit no offence is presumed, and no evidence can be admitted to rebut this.
 Presumption of law can mean both irrebuttable and rebuttable presumption. Irrebuttable presumptions
are conclusive presumptions of law wherein the court will not allow any evidence to contradict it.
Rebuttable presumptions of law are presumptions which the court will allow evidence to contradict it.
For example, a man is innocent until proven guilty, or a child if born in wedlock shall be presumed
legitimate unless it is disproved, are rebuttable presumptions of law. Presumptions of law take place
when the party bearing the evidential burden has adduced evidence in support of a primary fact and as
a result, a presumed fact is deemed to exist
('Janab's Key To Criminal Procedure and Evidence ' 2nd edn. by Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, at p. 646)
Seksyen 4(3) Akta Keterangan 1950

 (3) Apabila satu fakta ditetapkan oleh Akta ini sebagai bukti konklusif suatu fakta lain, mahkamah
hendaklah, apabila terbukti fakta yang satu itu, menyifatkan fakta yang satu lagi itu sebagai terbukti,
dan tidak boleh membenarkan keterangan diberikan bagi maksud membuktikan sebaliknya fakta itu.
Seksyen 4(3) AK pula berkenaan dengan anggapan undang-undang yang tidak boleh dipatahkan
atau unrebuttable presumption. Sebagai contoh, anggapan yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen
113 AK:

Seksyen 113. Anggapan bahawa budak lelaki yang berumur di bawah 13 tahun tidak
berupaya melakukan rogol.

Maka hendaklah menjadi suatu anggapan undang-undang yang tidak boleh patah bahawa
seseorang budak lelaki yang berumur di bawah tiga belas tahun tidak berupaya melakukan rogol.
(Conclusive Proof)

Lihat juga seksyen 41 dan 112 Akta Keterangan 1950.

Anggapan Fakta dan Seksyen 114 Akta
Keterangan 1950
Seksyen 114. Mahkamah boleh menganggap kewujudan fakta
tertentu.

Mahkamah boleh menganggap kewujudan apa-apa fakta yang

difikirkannya mungkin telah berlaku, setelah mengambil perhatian akan
perjalanan biasa kejadian semula jadi, kelakuan manusia, dan urusan
awam dan persendirian, dalam hubungannya dengan fakta kes yang
tertentu itu.

Apabila seksyen 4(1) AK dibaca bersama seksyen 114 AK, mahkamah

boleh membuat anggapan mengenai kewujudan sesuatu fakta tertentu.
PP v. LIM KIANG CHAI [2016] 4 CLJ
173
[66] The presumption in s. 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 is not mandatory. It is only
discretionary. It ought to be used only where its use is strictly for the ends of justice:
Mohamed Ali v. PP [1962] 1 LNS 99; [1962] 1 MLJ 230, Metroplex Development
Sdn Bhd v. Mohd Mastana Makaddas & Anor [1995] 3 CLJ 70; [1995] 2 MLJ 276.
Whether or not there is justification to invoke s. 114 depends very much on the set of
the facts of each case.
On the facts before us, the black bag discovered in the respondent's house not long
after the break in and less than three weeks after the murder is indeed an independent
evidence tending to connect the respondent with the crime with which he was
charged unless it could be satisfactorily explained or accounted for.
Mah Kok Cheong v. R [1953] MLJ 46

Per Spenser Wilkinson J :

... Cases of theft or receiving where the only evidence against the accused is the
possession of property recently stolen. These cases are really in a class by themselves
- they may be looked upon not so much as cases where the law has cast a burden of
proof upon the accused, but rather as cases where the law has given special
significance to a certain class of circumstantial evidence, namely, the possession of
stolen goods. The law is that such possession is in itself evidence of the theft or
receiving unless explained.
Ilustration (a) S114 of the EA

PP v. WAN MOHD RAHIM WAN MOHD ZIN [2007] 5 CLJ 708

[9]Section 114(a) EA is a one of a series of presumptions of fact, which as stated in Sarkar on

Evidence, vol. 2 (14th edn) at p. 1505: "... are nothing more than logical inference of the
existence of one fact drawn from other proved or known facts without the help of any artificial
rules of law and they are always rebuttable." It means that as the consequence of the proof of an
initial series of facts by one party, the court may presume the existence or happening of a
separate act or event, unless there is an explanation or evidence to the contrary.
The fact that the words used are "may presume" clearly indicate that it is left to the discretion of
the court to decide whether on any particular set of facts, the presumption should be invoked.
The discretion is exercised having regard to the "common course of natural events, human
conduct... in their relation to the facts of the particular case." The presumption is an evidentiary
presumption rather than a presumption allocating the burden of proof. Its effect is to cast on the
opponent party the duty of producing evidence to the contrary.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. HONG AH
HUAT [1970] 1 LNS 193

Before s 114 can be applied it must be proved

( i) that the property is stolen;
(ii) that a person is in possession of the property, and
(iii) that this was soon after the theft.

The word "possession" implies a physical capacity to deal with a thing as we like to the
exclusion of everyone and a determination to exercise that physical power on one's own
behalf. It implies dominion and consciousness in the mind of the person having
dominion over the object. Possession must be conscious and intelligent possession and
not merely the physical presence of the accused in proximity or even in close proximity
to the object.
Misalan (b) Seksyen 114 memperuntukkan:
Bahawa seseorang rakan sejenayah sememangnya tidak boleh
dipercayai melainkan jika disokong mengenai butir-butir matan;

Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Haji Ismail & Anor [1940] MLJ 76,
mahkamah menyatakan:
There is no question of the mechanical application of any general rule of presumption. When
it is a question of this particular presumption, the credibility of the witness who is in the
position of an accomplice must be individually judged just as any other witness, the some
considerations being applied, with the added one that he is an accomplice. The court must
consider who and what he is, his demeanour, bearing, the manner and quality and substance
of his evidence in itself and in relation to all the circumstances of the case. The nature,
quality and degree of his complicity must be examined. Then finally the court must form its
opinion whether he is to be given credit and his evidence accepted without corroboration or
not.
He is a competent witness and as such is entitled to have his credibility judged in itself; his
evidence must be weighed and examined and not put aside unjudged and unconsidered
because he is an accomplice.
 Apa yang akan berlaku sekiranya mahkamah membuat
anggapan? Bahawa seseorang rakan sejenayah
sememangnya tidak boleh dipercayai melainkan jika
keterangannya disokong oleh keterangan lain yang material.
Walau bagaimanapun, anggapan ini bukan berlaku secara
automatik.
Abdul Karim Kula v. PP [2009] 10 CLJ 1

"[26] Learned counsel also drew the court's attention to s. 114(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 which provides that the
court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. This
provision was the subject of an appeal in PP v. Haji Ismail & Anor [1939] 1 LNS 68; [1940] 9 MLJ 76 where the
Magistrate in acquitting the accused who was charged under s. 161 of the Penal Code automatically applied the
presumption. In ruling that the learned Magistrate was in error Cussen J said at p. 79:
 There is no question of the mechanical application of any general rule of presumption. When it is a question of
this particular presumption, the credibility of the witness who is in the position of an accomplice must be
individually judged as any other witness, the same considerations being applied, with the added one that he is
an accomplice. The court must consider who and what he is, his demeanour, hearing, the manner and quality
and substance of his evidence in itself and in relation to all the circumstances of the case. The nature, quality
and degree of his complicity must be examined. Then finally the Court must form its opinion whether he is to
be given credit and his evidence accepted without corroboration or not.
 He is a competent witness and as such is entitled to have his credibility judged in itself; his evidence must be
weighed and examined and not put aside unjudged and unconsidered because he is an accomplice.
 [27] It is therefore wrong to apply the presumption under s. 114(b) of the Evidence Act without giving due
consideration to the evidence of the accomplice
Misalan (g) Seksyen 114 Akta
Keterangan 1950
 (g) bahawa keterangan yang boleh dikemukakan tetapi tidak dikemukakan, jika
dikemukakan, tidak akan memberi faedah kepada orang yang enggan
mengemukakannya;

-Melalui misalan (g) kepada seksyen 114 AK, mahkamah boleh membuat
anggapan sebaliknya atau adverse inference jika terdapat keterangan yang begitu
penting tetapi telah tidak dikemukakan kepada mahkamah. Kaedah ini adalah
berdasarkan kepada maxim omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem. If a man
wrongfully withholds evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage consistent
with the facts admitted or proved will be adopted.
-Sebelum s.114(g) ini boleh digunakan, hendaklah terdapat keterangan yang
menunjukkan pihak yang berkenaan menyembunyikan (tidak mengemukakan)
fakta berkenaan.
Munusamy v Public Prosecutor [1987] 1 MLJ 492

It is essential to appreciate the scope of section 114(g) lest it be carried

too far outside its limit. Adverse inference under the illustration can only
be drawn if there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely
an account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be drawn from withholding
not just any document, but a material document by a party in his
possession or for non production of not just any witness but an important
and material witness to the case
Kesimpulan Kes
1. Anggapan sebaliknya hanya boleh digunakan jika terdapat penahanan
keterangan utama sama ada saksi ataupun dokumen.
2. Anggapan ini bukanlah mandatori tetapi bergantung pada keadaan
sesuatu kes itu (jenis keterangan)
Goh Ah Yew v PP [1949] MLJ 150

Pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan supaya anggapan seksyen 114(g)

digunakan terhadap perayu atas alasan kegagalan pihak perayu untuk
memanggil saksi yang hadir dimahkamah. Menurut Mahkamah:

No such inference, however, can be drawn against an accused in a

criminal trial. There is no duty upon an accused to call any evidence.
He is at liberty to offer evidence or not as he thinks proper and no
inference unfavourable to him can be drawn because he adopts one
course rather than the other.
Tan Gong Wai [1984] 1 LNS 156; [1985] 1
MLJ 355
(the High Court explained the effect of the defence not calling witnesses):
 I realise that no adverse inference against an accused person may be drawn by reason of his
failure to call any witness or indeed to even give evidence on his own behalf for all he has to do
is to raise a reasonable doubt: (Goh Ah Yew v. Public Prosecutor [1948] 1 LNS 13; [1949] MLJ
150. However, the failure to call any particular witness is a matter which the Court may take into
account in assessing the weight of evidence (without drawing any adverse inference) especially
so when the potential witnesses were persons in respect of whom the prosecution had probably
no means of knowing that they might have any relevant evidence to give until the accused
himself came to give evidence (Regina v. Gallagher[1974] 1 WLR 1204; Public Prosecutor v.
Lira Kuan Hock [1967] 1 LNS 130; [1967] 2 MLJ 114, 115; Tay Choo Wah v. Public Prosecutor
[1976] 1 LNS 156; [1976] 2 MLJ 95, 100
Budibicara PP untuk memanggil saksi

Kes : Adel Muhammed El Dabbah [1944]AC 156

Mahkamah dalam kes ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwa mempunyai
budibicara untuk menentukan saksi yang ingin dipanggil dan mahkamah tidak
boleh campur tangan kecuali dapat dibuktikan bahawa pihak pendakwa
mempunyai ‘oblique motive’.
Public Prosecutor v Magendra Mohan [2005]
3 CLJ 592

I am aware that no adverse inference against the accused may be drawn

by reason of his failure to call any witness to back up his story. All the
accused has to do is create a reasonable doubt (see Goh Ah Yew: [1949]
MLJ 150).
However, the failure to call any witness is a matter which the court
may take into account in assessing the weight of evidence (without
drawing any adverse inference) especially so when the potential witnesses
were persons in respect of whom the prosecution had probably no
means of knowing that they might have any relevant evidence to give until
the accused himself came to give evidence……
Kes: Baharom v PP [1960] MLJ 249

Tertuduh telah dituduh dibawah seksyen 302 KK. Terdapat 16 kesan tikaman kepada si
mati. Beliau dibunuh secara kejam. Pihak pembelaan bergantung kepada belaan tidak
sempurna akal fikiran.

What the trial Judge clearly had in mind was that such medical evidence as there was was
all in favour of the appellant being sane and that, as he pointed out, there was in existence
some other evidence relating to the mental condition of the accused in the evidence of the
Superintendent of the Mental Hospital at Tanjong Rambutan, presumably some sort of an
expert, but it was for the defence to call that evidence and if they did not do so the jury
might safely draw the unfavourable inference provided for by section 114(g) of the
Evidence Ordinance, that is to say that if called it would be unfavourable to the accused.
Juahir Sadikon v Perbadanan Kemajuan
Ekonomi Negeri Johor [1996] 3 MLJ 627
Perayu adalah penghuni sebuah rumah kos rendah yang
dibina oleh responden. Dalam perjanjian di antara perayu dan
responden, pihak perayu telah diberi opsyen untuk membeli
rumah tersebut. Perayu kemudiannya menghujahkan bahawa
terdapat representasi daripada pengerusi responden bahawa
rumah berkenaan akan dijual dengan harga RM7,000 hingga
RM8,000. Menurut Mahkamah:

.
 He who alleges must prove such allegation and the onus is on the appellant to do
so.
 See s 103 of the Act. Thus, it is incumbent upon the appellant to produce Tan Sri
Basir as his witness to prove the allegation. The fact that the appellant was unable
to secure the attendance of Tan Sri Basir as a witness does not shift the burden to
the respondent to produce the witness and testify as to what he had uttered, as
firstly, the respondent never raised such an allegation and, secondly, has denied
even making one. For this very reason, the adverse inference under s 114(g) of
the Act relied upon by the appellant cannot be accepted as establishing that if the
witness had been produced, his evidence would work against the respondent.
 There is no obligation in law for the respondent to produce the witness as that
obligation rests with the appellant, the party who alleges, and the fact that the
appellant was unable to do so is fatal to his case. For this very reason too, the
adverse inference under s 114(g) is invoked against the appellant