Public Prosecutor Preevan a/l Chanderan

Public Prosecutor Preevan a/l Chanderan

The court accepted the victim's uncontradicted evidence corroborated by an eyewitness (PW1) that the accused intentionally touched the victim's back without consent; that touching constituted criminal force and, in the circumstances, would outrage modesty of a reasonable person; intoxication defence was not established; Whatsapp screenshots were inadmissible secondary evidence; therefore prosecution proved a prima facie case and, after full trial, the accused was guilty under s.354 and sentenced accordingly.

Citation
BH-83JS-20-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Preevan a/l Chanderan; Complainant/victim: Noriwi binti Sipayon
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Case Number
BH-83JS-20-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Section 354 Penal Code (outraging Modesty) / Judgment Conviction and Sentence (magistrate Court)
Outcome
Accused convicted under s.354 Penal Code of outraging modesty and sentenced to a RM6000 fine, in default six months imprisonment; application to stay execution dismissed.
Legal Topics
Outraging Modesty, Criminal Force, Intoxication Defence, Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, Corroboration in Sexual Offences, Mitigation and Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Outraging Modesty Criminal Force Intoxication Defence Admissibility of Electronic Evidence Corroboration in Sexual Offences +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Preevan a/l Chanderan

Accused

Noriwi binti Sipayon

Complainant/victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal Section 354 Penal Code (outraging Modesty) / Judgment Conviction and Sentence (magistrate Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused used criminal force on the complainant
  2. 2 Whether the touch was done with intent or knowledge to outrage modesty under s.354 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether intoxication absolves criminal liability under s.85 Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the victim's uncontradicted evidence corroborated by an eyewitness (PW1) that the accused intentionally touched the victim's back without consent; that touching constituted criminal force and, in the circumstances, would outrage modesty of a reasonable person; intoxication defence was not established; Whatsapp screenshots were inadmissible secondary evidence; therefore prosecution proved a prima facie case and, after full trial, the accused was guilty under s.354 and sentenced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted under s.354 Penal Code of outraging modesty and sentenced to a RM6000 fine, in default six months imprisonment; application to stay execution dismissed.

Orders

  • Convicted under Section 354 Penal Code
  • Sentenced to a fine of RM6000, in default six months imprisonment