Evidence Act 1950 s 114

s 114 Court may presume existence of certain fact

The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. ILLUSTRATIONS The court may presume— (a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; (b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars; (c) that a bill of exchange accepted or endorsed was accepted or endorsed for good consideration; (d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist is still in existence; (e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed; (f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases; (g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; (h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer if given would be unfavourable to him; (i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor the obligation has been discharged. But the court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether the maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it: (i) as to illustration (a)—a shopkeeper has in his till a marked ringgit soon after it was stolen and cannot account for its possession specifically but is continually receiving ringgit in the course of his business; (ii) as to illustration (b)—A, a person of the highest character is tried for causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; (iii) as to illustration (b)—a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable; (iv) as to illustration (c)—A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person completely under A’s influence; (v) as to illustration (d)—it is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course; (vi) as to illustration (e)—a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances; (vii) as to illustration (f)—the question is whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; (viii) as to illustration (g)—a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feeling and reputation of his family; (ix) as to illustration (h)—a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked; (x) as to illustration (i)—a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.

Malay text (authoritative)

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. 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 diketahuinya sebagai barang-barang curi, melainkan jika dia boleh menerangkan bagaimana barang-barang itu berada dalam milikannya; (b) bahawa seseorang rakan sejenayah sememangnya tidak boleh dipercayai melainkan jika disokong mengenai butir-butir material; (c) bahawa sesuatu bil pertukaran yang telah diterima atau diendorskan telah diterima atau diendorskan bagi balasan yang cukup; (d) bahawa sesuatu benda atau keadaan benda masih wujud jika ia dibuktikan sebagai wujud dalam tempoh yang lebih singkat daripada tempoh yang benda atau keadaan benda itu biasanya terhenti wujud; (e) bahawa tindakan kehakiman dan tindakan rasmi telah dilaksanakan mengikut aturan; (f) bahawa perjalanan biasa urusan telah diikuti dalam hal tertentu; (g) bahawa keterangan yang boleh dikemukakan tetapi tidak dikemukakan, jika dikemukakan, tidak akan memberi faedah kepada orang yang enggan mengemukakannya; (h) bahawa jika seseorang enggan menjawab sesuatu soalan yang dia tidak terpaksa menjawab di sisi undang-undang, jawapannya jika diberikan tidak akan memberi faedah kepadanya; (i) bahawa apabila sesuatu dokumen yang mewujudkan sesuatu obligasi berada dalam tangan penanggung obligasi, obligasi itu telah ditunaikan; Tetapi mahkamah hendaklah juga mengambil perhatian akan fakta yang berikut dalam menimbangkan sama ada maksim itu boleh dipakai atau tidak bagi kes tertentu di hadapannya: (i) tentang misalan (a)—seorang pekedai mempunyai di dalam laci duitnya wang ringgit yang bertanda sebaik selepas wang itu dicuri dan dia tidak dapat menerangkan dengan spesifik bagaimana wang itu boleh berada dalam milikannya tetapi dia sentiasa menerima wang ringgit dalam perjalanan perniagaannya; (ii) tentang misalan (b)—A, seorang yang berwatak terpuji, dibicarakan kerana menyebabkan kematian seseorang dengan perbuatan cuai dalam mengatur mesin tertentu. B, seorang yang sama baik wataknya, yang juga mengambil bahagian dalam mengatur mesin itu, menerangkan dengan tepat apa yang telah dilakukan serta mengaku dan menghuraikan kelalaian bersama A dan dirinya; (iii) tentang misalan (b)—suatu jenayah dilakukan oleh beberapa orang. A, B dan C, tiga daripada penjenayah itu, telah ditangkap di tempat berlakunya jenayah itu dan diasingkan antara satu sama lain. Setiap daripada mereka menerangkan hal jenayah itu dengan melibatkan D, dan keterangan itu menyokong satu sama lain dalam cara yang menunjukkan bahawa tidak mungkin sekali ada pakatan terlebih dahulu; (iv) tentang misalan (c)—A, penyuruh bayar suatu bil pertukaran, ialah seorang yang mahir dalam urusan perniagaan. B, penerimanya, ialah seorang muda dan tidak berpengetahuan yang berada di bawah pengaruh A sepenuhnya; (v) tentang misalan (d)—dibuktikan bahawa sebatang sungai telah mengalir mengikut suatu aliran tertentu lima tahun dahulu, tetapi diketahui bahawa banjir telah berlaku dalam masa itu yang mungkin telah mengubah alirannya; (vi) tentang misalan (e)—suatu tindakan kehakiman, yang keteraturannya menjadi persoalan, telah dilaksanakan dalam hal keadaan luar biasa; (vii) tentang misalan (f)—soalnya adalah sama ada suatu surat telah diterima. Ditunjukkan bahawa surat itu telah diposkan, tetapi perjalanan biasa pos itu telah terganggu oleh kekacauan; (viii) tentang misalan (g)—seseorang enggan mengemukakan suatu dokumen yang ada kaitan dengan suatu kontrak yang tidak begitu penting yang berasaskannya dia dibawa guaman, tetapi dokumen itu mungkin juga melukakan perasaan dan mencemarkan reputasi keluarganya; (ix) tentang misalan (h)—seseorang enggan menjawab suatu soalan yang dia tidak terpaksa menjawabnya di sisi undang-undang, tetapi jawapan kepada soalan itu mungkin menyebabkan kerugian kepadanya dalam perkara yang tidak ada kaitan dengan apa yang ditanya; (x) tentang misalan (i)—suatu bon ada dalam milikan penanggung obligasinya, tetapi hal keadaan kes itu sebegitu rupa sehingga menunjukkan bahawa dia mungkin telah mencurinya.

Read this section in the full act → · Open Chapter VII →

Find Act 56 on lom.agc.gov.my ↗

Text as at 1 May 2017 (LOM reprint); amendments made after that date may not be incorporated.

Source: Laws of Malaysia, Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia (lom.agc.gov.my). Not a copy of the Gazette printed by the Government Printer (Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s 61).

What to look at next

Evidence Act 1950, full textChapter navigation and full text, so you can read this section in contextMalaysia legislation Malaysia Acts by type and yearGrouped by instrument type and year of enactment, so you can find others of the same kindBrowse by type and year Chapter VII — Burden of proof — read this in contextThe surrounding text of the act in order, so you can see what comes before and afterChapters and sections