Sulaiman bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 497

Court of Appeal, Putrajaya

Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Kidnapping – Kidnap for ransom

1.    The three appellants, along with two other individuals, were charged with kidnapping a man named Tan for ransom, an offense punishable under subsection 3(1) of the Kidnapping Act 1961.

2.    Tan was walking to his car after work when several men grabbed him from behind, forced him into a van, and tied his hands and legs.  His eyes and mouth were covered with cellophane tape.

3.    He was taken to a homestay and locked inside a toilet while the kidnappers contacted his brother to demand a ransom of RM500,000.  His continuous screams for help attracted attention, and he was rescued by the police the next morning.

4.    Police officers spotted Sulaiman and Kamaruzaman sitting in a car parked near the homestay.  When approached, they attempted to flee but were arrested.

5.    A cell phone with two SIM cards and a homestay key were seized from Kamaruzaman.  Investigations revealed that Sulaiman had rented the homestay using a lost identity card belonging to Mohd Elias.

6.    Police found Tan’s wallet and personal documents at a house Sulaiman led them to.  Kamaruzaman had rented the van used in the kidnapping, and his fingerprints were found in the room where Tan was confined.

7.    Initially, the High Court acquitted all accused persons without calling for their defense.  However, the Public Prosecutor appealed, and the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, ordering the defense to be called.

8.    After reviewing all the evidence and hearing the defense, the High Court found the Appellants guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment and 10 strokes of whippings.

1.    Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the Appellants were involved in the kidnapping?

2.    Whether the Appellants’ defense raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case?

1.    Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the Appellants were involved in the kidnapping?

(a)      Court of Appeal ruled that there was strong circumstantial evidence proving the appellants’ involvement in the kidnapping.

(b)      COA judges stated, the prosecution’s evidence was strong and led to only one conclusion which the common intention. The combination of evidence in SIM card records, fingerprints, and DNA were pointed directly to the Appellants’ roles in the crime.

(c)      The evidence clearly showed that the Appellants acted together according to a pre-arranged plan to commit the kidnapping.

(d)      COA found that the Appellants acted with a common intention to kidnap the victim for ransom.

(e)      Key evidence linking the Appellants to the crime, where Sulaiman rented the homestay in which the victim was confined by using a stolen identity card.

(f)        Moreover, Kamaruzaman rented the van used for kidnapping.  SIM card analysis showed ransom calls were made from phones linked to the Appellants.

(g)      Fingerprints and DNA of the Appellants were found in the room where the victim was held.

(h)      When police approached them, they tried to escape, which the court viewed as consciousness of guilt.

(i)        Court of Appeal concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The evidence overwhelmingly showed the Appellants’ involvement in the kidnapping.

(j)        Once the court has determined that the prosecution has established a prima facie case, there is no need to reconsider that decision unless the defence presents new evidence that could create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.

(k)       The key issue in this appeal is whether the learned trial judge was justified and correct in deciding that the defence did not raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.  The prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

2.    Whether the Appellants’ defense raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case?

(a)   The Court of Appeal firmly agreed with the trial judge ruled that the Appellants’ defense did not raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

(b)   The key points from the judges’ ruling were, the defense’s explanation was weak as the Appellants denied the involvement.

(c)   They made up a story that they were fishing and that the second Appellant “accidentally” found a plastic bag containing SIM cards.

(d)   The court rejected this defense, stating it was an afterthought and not credible.  COA found this story to be completely unreasonable and fabricated to avoid liability.

(e)  The SIM cards were already in use for ransom calls before the Appellants claimed to have found them.

(f)     These same SIM card numbers were the ones used to call the victim’s brother for ransom before the Appellants claimed they found them.

(g)   This proved that their defense was false and that they were directly involved in the kidnapping.

(h)   The defense did not provide any reasonable explanation for the evidence in which the appellants failed to explain why their fingerprints and DNA were found at the crime scene.

(i)     They did not deny that their phone numbers were linked to the ransom calls, but could not provide a valid reason for this.

(j)     The court found that their story lacked credibility and was full of inconsistencies.

(k)    Court of Appeal ruled that the defense did not raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

(l)     Thus, the COA upheld their convictions and life imprisonment sentences.

Both Appellants appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial judge was affirmed.

1.        Circumstantial evidence can establish even without direct eyewitness identification. In this case which proven by a series of strong circumstantial evidence such as sim card records, fingerprints, rental records, and behaviour can lead to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.        Mere denial is not a strong defense, simply denying involvement without solid proof does not create reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

3.        Common intention in criminal acts in which all participants in a planned crime are equally liable, even if some had smaller roles.

4.        Courts consider factors like severity of harm, length of confinement, and whether ransom was paid when deciding the appropriate punishment.