ASIHAR BIN KAMARUDDIN

ASIHAR BIN KAMARUDDIN

The conviction was set aside because the Sessions Court materially misdirected itself by finding the defence was not put to prosecution witnesses despite the record showing the defence was put and supported in part by defence and investigation evidence, and because the prosecution failed to prove the complainant was under 18 as required for s.14(a); those errors caused a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution's appeal on sentence was dismissed as the sentence was within legal bounds.

Citation
AA-42JSKH-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Appellant/accused: Asihar bin Kamaruddin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
AA-42JSKH-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (consolidated) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's appeal on sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Physical Sexual Assault Under Act 792, Cross Examination/browne V Dunn Rule, Proof of Age in Criminal Prosecutions, Appellate Review of Misdirection and Sentence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Child Protection Law Sentencing Physical Sexual Assault Under Act 792 Cross Examination/browne V Dunn Rule Proof of Age in Criminal Prosecutions Appellate Review of Misdirection and Sentence

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Asihar bin Kamaruddin

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (consolidated) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the appellant's defence as not having been put to prosecution witnesses
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the complainant was under 18 years for s.14(a) Act 792
  3. 3 Whether the misdirection amounted to a miscarriage of justice warranting appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was set aside because the Sessions Court materially misdirected itself by finding the defence was not put to prosecution witnesses despite the record showing the defence was put and supported in part by defence and investigation evidence, and because the prosecution failed to prove the complainant was under 18 as required for s.14(a); those errors caused a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution's appeal on sentence was dismissed as the sentence was within legal bounds.

Court Disposition

Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's appeal on sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted and discharged.
  • Prosecution's appeal on sentence dismissed.