638 Malayan Law Journal 49 [2016] 2 MLJ Keterangan Tertuduh tidak boleh diterima apabila dilihat dari segi perlakuan Tertuduh yang tidak selaras dengan dakwaannya bahawa dia tiada pengetahuan terhadap bahan tersebut sebenarnya adalah dadah kerana – 49.1 Tertuduh menyorokkan kesemua ketulan dadah dalam perutnya dengan liciknya untuk melepasi atau lari daripada pengetahuan dan penahanan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Malaysia bagi dadah tersebut (lihat kes Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64); 49.2 Sekiranya bahan tersebut yang ditelan oleh Tertuduh benar-benar adalah ‘Precious Stones’ seperti yang didakwanya, Tertuduh sebenarnya tidak perlu membahayakan nyawanya sendiri dengan menelan ketulan berbungkus plastik ke dalam perutnya kerana ‘Precious Stones’ bukan bahan salah atau larangan dan boleh dibawa masuk secara terbuka ke negara ini atau secara membuat deklarasi kepada Pihak Berkuasa; dan 49.3 Semasa diarahkan oleh Chibike untuk menelan kesemua ketulan tersebut, Tertuduh walaupun mendakwa dirinya dalam keadaan mabuk tetapi masih boleh ingat lagi dia menelannya bersama sup ‘equsy’ bercampur dengan ‘draw Soup’(?) [32] The third ground of appeal canvassed by learned counsel was that the appellant had no mens rea possession of the drugs. This ground of appeal impinged on the fact that based on the evidence adduced there was great doubt whether the appellant was conscious of his possession. The facts relied by learned counsel was that: (a) at the time of the arrest the appellant was drinking a bottle of dye; (b) when he was brought into the hospital and from the evidence of Dr Cheng Zhe Phang (SP13), the appellant was in a critical state; and (c) there was no overt act and no mens rea possession in relation to the place of the offence as stated in the charge which is at the hospital. [33] We agree with learned counsel’s contention that the learned trial judge erred when His Lordship did not view the evidence from these angles. It is doubtful that the appellant had the conscious knowledge that he was in mens rea possession of the impugned drugs in question when he was admitted to Hospital Melaka. [34] For various reasons abovestated, we unanimously found that the conviction for trafficking was not safe. We therefore made the following orders: (a) the appeal was allowed; (b) the conviction of the High Court was set aside; A B C D E F G H I