KHAIRIL ISMAIL BIN TAJU ARIFFIN

KHAIRIL ISMAIL BIN TAJU ARIFFIN

After maximum evaluation the court found prosecution failed to prove the element of criminal force and that the complainant's evidence was not 'unusually convincing' or safe to convict; material inconsistencies and credible alternative explanations (including alleged collusion) and the successful credibility challenge to SP5 meant no prima facie case under s354 was established; accused discharged and freed without being called to enter defence.

Citation
CA-83JS-2-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Khairil Ismail bin Taju Ariffin
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Case Number
CA-83JS-2-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offence (alleged Outrage of Modesty Under Section 354 Penal Code) / Close of Prosecution: Prima Facie Assessment; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; not called to enter defence (dilepas dan dibebaskan).
Legal Topics
Outraging Modesty (section 354), Definition of Force (sections 349/350), Prima Facie Assessment, Corroboration in Sexual Offences, Credibility Challenge Under S155 Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Outraging Modesty (section 354) Definition of Force (sections 349/350) Prima Facie Assessment 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Khairil Ismail bin Taju Ariffin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offence (alleged Outrage of Modesty Under Section 354 Penal Code) / Close of Prosecution: Prima Facie Assessment; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved use of criminal force under Section 354 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether there was intention or knowledge to outrage the complainant's modesty
  3. 3 Whether complainant's evidence was sufficiently credible/unusually convincing

Ratio Decidendi

After maximum evaluation the court found prosecution failed to prove the element of criminal force and that the complainant's evidence was not 'unusually convincing' or safe to convict; material inconsistencies and credible alternative explanations (including alleged collusion) and the successful credibility challenge to SP5 meant no prima facie case under s354 was established; accused discharged and freed without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; not called to enter defence (dilepas dan dibebaskan).

Orders

  • Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan bagi Pertuduhan Pindaan di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri.
  • Keterangan SP5 (isteri kepada tertuduh) ditolak dan tidak diterima kerana percanggahan material yang gagal dijelaskan (kebolehpercayaan dicabar mengikut s155 Akta Keterangan).