Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The Public Prosecutor asks the court to find Farid Azman guilty of theft of a cordless drill belonging to Elaine’s business. The prosecution says Farid carried the drill out after closing on 18 June without permission and took it for personal use. Farid denies that the taking alone proves dishonest intent. He relies in part on an earlier authorized loan and says a later reply supported his belief that borrowing was allowed, while acknowledging that the later message has not been produced. 2. This is a criminal matter. The supplied rules require the prosecution to support the key elements with reliable evidence; accusation or suspicion is not enough. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge. The court decides only on the supplied hearing record and does not assume facts that are not established there. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the prosecution proved that Farid took the drill dishonestly. The record supports that he carried it out of the shop area, but the disputed question is whether the evidence proves the required criminal intent. The supplied rules are Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof; Rule 8, Suspicion Is Not Proof; and Rule 41, Each Element Must Be Proven. Submissions of the parties 4. The Public Prosecutor argued that Farid took the drill after closing without prior agreement or notice, and that this differed from his earlier practice of asking before borrowing. The prosecution also relied on Elaine’s account that she saw him carry the drill out and had not given permission that evening. The prosecution described the drill as worth more than RM300, but the record contains no independent valuation or other proof of that amount. 5. Farid argued that carrying the drill out does not by itself prove he intended to steal it. He relied on the 10 June WhatsApp screenshot showing Elaine agreed to an earlier loan, while expressly accepting that it does not establish permission on 18 June. Farid also referred to a later reply that he says supported his belief, but conceded that it was not produced and could not be offered as verified evidence. He asked the court to refuse the prosecution’s request. Evidence and findings 6. Elaine’s account, presented as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated in exhibits 4-e1 and 14-e1, says she saw Farid carry the shop’s drill out after closing on 18 June and had not given permission that evening. This is direct evidence of the removal and Elaine’s account of permission. The repeated exhibit entries describe the same account; they are not separate independent observations. The account supports the prosecution, but permission is disputed and the record does not include admitted testimony from Elaine beyond the presented account. 7. The admitted eyewitness testimony is that the witness recognized Farid leaving Elaine’s shop area after closing with a cordless drill (statement-6). The witness did not hear any conversation about it and could not say whether the removal was authorized (statement-13). This independently supports the fact that Farid carried a drill out. It does not independently establish lack of permission or intent to steal. The witness’s answers also do not support the prosecution’s suggestion that Farid tried to avoid being seen or heard. 8. The 10 June screenshot (exhibit-2-e2) shows Elaine agreed to an earlier loan and asked Farid to return the drill the next day. It is a presented record and relevant context, but it concerns a different date and does not prove permission on 18 June. Farid’s account of a later reply is not a produced message or admitted witness testimony. The court does not treat that reply as verified proof. The prosecution’s submissions that Farid took the drill for personal use, fled, or intended to keep it are allegations, not independently established facts on this record. No evidence establishes whether the drill was later returned or kept. Reasons 9. The prosecution has proved that Farid carried the drill out after closing. Elaine’s account also supports that she had not given permission that evening. Those facts create a serious concern, but the supplied criminal rules require proof of each required element, including dishonesty. The court must distinguish evidence of the act of carrying the drill from proof of Farid’s state of mind. 10. The eyewitness could not say whether the removal was authorized. The earlier screenshot does not establish permission on the charged evening, but it does show a real prior authorized loan and gives some context to Farid’s claimed belief. The later reply cannot add reliable documentary support because it was not produced. These limitations apply to both sides: the unproduced reply is not proof for Farid, while the absence of evidence about what happened to the drill afterward leaves the prosecution without that possible support for dishonest intent. 11. The prosecution’s argument that Farid previously asked before borrowing may support an inference that he knew permission mattered. But the record does not establish that this earlier practice proves he intended to steal on this occasion. Nor does the fact that the removal occurred after closing, without more reliable evidence of intent, resolve the question. The court does not require Farid to prove that he had permission; the burden remains with the prosecution. 12. Applying Rules 8 and 41, the court finds that the prosecution has not proved dishonest intent to the required criminal standard. The issue of dishonest taking is therefore not proven. This finding does not establish that Farid had permission on 18 June; it means only that the prosecution has not proved the charge on the available record. The claimed value of more than RM300 is also not independently established, but no monetary award is sought or supported in this criminal disposition. Final order 13. The charge against Farid Azman is dismissed. Farid is not found guilty on the supplied record. The Public Prosecutor’s request for a theft conviction is denied. No payment or compensation is ordered, because the record does not establish a basis or amount for such an award.