Darjah Pembuktian Bagi Kesalahan Hudud Di Bawah Enakmen Jenayah Syariah Di Malaysia: Yaqin Atau Zan Al-Ghalib?

Fair sentence calls for credible evidence and proof. Discussion on evidence always revolves on burden and standard of proof. Standard of proof is important in every Syariah criminal trial because the accurate adoption of standard of proof guarantees dispensation ultimate justice. Failure to adopt the correct standard of proof will cause injustice to the parties involved. This article is intended to examine the standard of proof aspect in relation to hudud offences under syariah law and analyse that aspect under the syariah criminal jurisdiction in this country. This research also intends to propose few identified solutions to the issue at hand. This research stands on qualitative legal research methodology. The data and information are obtained through interviews and documentations of reported and unreported cases. Subsequently all data are analysed through the critical content analysis methodology. The research outcome indicates that there are loopholes in the law relating to standard of proof applicable to criminal syariah offences in this country. Hence there are two approaches adopted, either yaqinor zan al-Ghalib. The different approaches are results of incoherent treatment towards the status of hudud offence under the present law, whether it shall remain as hudud offences or be treated as takzir. The differing view crystalizes a presence of inconsistent thoughts and practices. Therefore, this research proposes to adopt zan al-Ghalibas the standard of proof for hudud offences under the Syariah Criminal Enactments in this country to ensure integrated thoughts and uniform practice.