MUHAMMAD DANISH RAHMAN BIN SUHAIMI 055409

TEST 1 LLB40103
QUESTION 1

Jambu is charged with robbing Sultan Jewelers situated in KTCC Mall, Kuala
Terengganu at 7.00 P.M, on Thursday, 29th December 2022. Jambu pleads alibi.

State the burden and standard of proof in the above case.

ANSWER

Whether Jambu has the burden of proof to support his defense against the
charge of robbing Sultan Jewelers.
Criminal Procedure Code Section 402A(1) states that the court must inform the
accused of his right to present an alibi defense the moment the accused is charged.
From this section, a person has the right to plead an alibi defense when he claims he
was not there at a location when the crime was committed.
The burden of proof under Section 101 is governed by the Evidence Act.
Anyone who wants a court to rule on a legal right or responsibility based on his
assertion of certain facts must provide evidence of those facts. In addition, Section
101(2) of the Evidence Act stated that the burden of proof rests on the party who is
required to establish the existence of a fact. According to Section 103 of the same Act,
the burden of proof for any fact is on the party that wants the court to accept it, unless
a certain individual is designated by law as having the burden of proving the fact.
Salleh Abas FJ explains the burden of proof as having two distinct meanings, namely
the burden of establishing a case and the burden of introducing evidence, in
International Times & Ors v. Leong Ho Yuen [1980] 2 MLJ 86.
There is a difference between the expressions of the burden of proof and the
standard of proof in these two contexts. Salleh Abas explained that section 102 of the
Evidence Act refers to the onus of order to discharge the burden of proof in the second
sense. According to sections 102 and 103, if the party with whom this onus lies initially
or later because of its shifting does not give further evidence or gives evidence that is
insufficient, such party must fail because the onus, unlike the burden, is not stable and
constantly shifts during the trial from one side to the other in accordance with the scale
of evidence and other preponderates.
The Karnataka High Court ruled in Karim @ Abdul Karim v. the State of
Karnataka that " It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the burden is on the
MUHAMMAD DANISH RAHMAN BIN SUHAIMI 055409
TEST 1 LLB40103
prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated
in the crime." But after the prosecution successfully discharges its burden, it is the
accused's responsibility to show his alibi with absolute certainty to rule out the chance
that he was there at the scene. While the premise in Arumugam Mothiyah v PP holds
that the appellant presented an alibi defense at a wedding in court. In addition, four
more defense witnesses backed up the same claim. Due to the accused's inability to
identify the bride and the bridegroom, the Sessions Court disregarded the alibi. The
High Court reversed the verdict, noting that the Sessions Court judge had neglected
to consider the fact that a wedding had in fact occurred at that time and day.
Additionally, it was held in Wong Sieng Ping v. PP [1967] 1 MET 56 (High Court,
Borneo) that the burden of proof for the prosecution in a criminal trial does not transfer
to the accused. The burden of proof is with the accused in Dato Mokhtar Hashim &
Anor v. PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232 (Federal Court) when he invokes the alibi defense.
Applying the law to the case results in the public prosecutor having the burden
of proof because, according to section 101(2) of the Evidence Act, robbery is the
case's factual matter, and the case is a criminal one. The burden of proof is with the
public prosecutor since he wants the court to accept that Jambu committed a robbery.
This is in accordance with section 103 and the Karim v. State of Karnataka case.
However, according to the decision of Wong Sieng Ping v. PP, Jambu does not have
to establish his innocence; rather, he just must create reasonable doubt in the court,
as required by the cases of Choy Hon Song and Dato Mokhtar Hashim v. pp.
In conclusion, Jambu's burden of proof for the robbery charge is limited to
establishing his alibi. Jambu is presumed innocent until and unless the prosecution
can establish otherwise. The onus of establishing the accused's innocence is not put
on him. The burden of proof for defenses like alibi was simply to present enough
evidence to the jury to raise a reasonable doubt.