10.

12

Senarai Ekshibit dan Penjagaan Ekshibit selepas

perbicaraan
Case Name and year: Jaafar Shaari & Anor v. Tan Lip Eng & Anor [1997] 4
CLJ 509
Court: Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur.
Judge: Peh Swee Chin (FCJ), Wan Adnan Ismail (FCJ) & Gopal Sri Ram (JCA)
Summary of Facts
TheAppellant(the deceases representatives) JaafarbinShaari.
TheRespondentsTanLipEng.

1. The deceased was killed in a collision involving a motor cycle ridden by the 1 st Respondent.
There were no eye-witnesses to the collision. The only other available evidence of the
manner of the accident was a police report which was lodged by the 1 st Respondent after the
collision.
2. The appellants then sought to tender in as evidence the Police Report No 424/84 which gave
a fairly detailed account of the accident without calling the maker which is the 1 st
Respondent. They contended that on the evidence of the sketch plan, the 1 st Respondent was
negligent and relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to prove their case
3. Respondents counsel informed the court that the 1st Respondent was not available to give
evidence as he was overseas and the made a statement to the effect that he was closing his
case but did not make a submission of no case to answer.
4. The trial judge held that Police Report No 424/84 was inadmissible and thus dismissed the
claim on the ground that there was no evidence to support the allegation of negligence by the
appellants. Appellants appealed.
Issue:
Whether the police report can be accepted as exhibit in the proceeding
without calling the maker.
Notstated
Plaintiff Arguments
Defendant Arguments

Notstated

Courts decision and

Allowing the appeal.

Peh Swee Chin, FCJ:In the absence of any express conditions, the following propositions
regarding the inclusion of any of the documents in the agreed bundle are
applicable:

reasoning [Para (c) (g)

page 521]

1. The documents contained in the agreed bundle should be

authentic and are in existence. Therefore, they require no
proof of their authenticity by calling their makers;
2. The truth of the contents of any such documents is not
always admitted unless the contrary is indicated and such
truth is liable to be challenged in court;
3. Such documents do not automatically form part of the
evidence of the case ipso facto unless it was referred to at
any stage before the conclusion of the case; and
4. It is up to the court to determine, at the end of the whole

case, the truth of and the weight to be attached to the

documents by taking into account the relevant
circumstances.