PENAMA XXXX

PENAMA XXXX

Applying maximum evaluation the court found that for Amended First and Second charges the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that penetration occurred because the complainant's evidence contained material inconsistencies as to time and circumstances, investigations produced no independent corroborative or forensic evidence, and the complainant's testimony was not of 'special weight'; therefore the accused was discharged on those two charges. The court found prima facie established only for the Amended Third charge and ordered the accused to enter defence on that count.

Citation
AB-84-42-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused (child): MZMA
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 March 2025
Case Number
AB-84-42-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Juvenile Sexual Offences (rape Under S.376/375 Penal Code) / Prima Facie Ruling at End of Prosecution: Accused Discharged on Amended First and Second Charges; Ordered to Enter Defence on Amended Third Charge; Prosecution Filed Appeal (17 Mar 2025)
Outcome
Accused (MZMA) released and acquitted on Amended First and Amended Second charges under s.376(1) Penal Code; accused ordered to enter defence on Amended Third charge under s.376(1) Penal Code; prosecution lodged appeal (17 Mar 2025).
Legal Topics
Rape, Prima Facie Case, Corroboration, Credibility of Witness, Penetration Element, Investigation Sufficiency
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Juvenile Law Sexual Offences Evidence Law Rape Prima Facie Case Corroboration Credibility of Witness +2 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

MZMA

Accused (child)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Juvenile Sexual Offences (rape Under S.376/375 Penal Code) / Prima Facie Ruling at End of Prosecution: Accused Discharged on Amended First and Second Charges; Ordered to Enter Defence on Amended Third Charge; Prosecution Filed Appeal (17 Mar 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case for each amended charge at the close of its case
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's evidence was credible and 'of special weight'
  3. 3 Whether corroboration was required given inconsistencies and delays

Ratio Decidendi

Applying maximum evaluation the court found that for Amended First and Second charges the prosecution failed to prove prima facie that penetration occurred because the complainant's evidence contained material inconsistencies as to time and circumstances, investigations produced no independent corroborative or forensic evidence, and the complainant's testimony was not of 'special weight'; therefore the accused was discharged on those two charges. The court found prima facie established only for the Amended Third charge and ordered the accused to enter defence on that count.

Court Disposition

Accused (MZMA) released and acquitted on Amended First and Amended Second charges under s.376(1) Penal Code; accused ordered to enter defence on Amended Third charge under s.376(1) Penal Code; prosecution lodged appeal (17 Mar 2025).

Orders

  • Accused MZMA is discharged and acquitted on Pertuduhan Pindaan Pertama (Amended First charge) under section 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan.
  • Accused MZMA is discharged and acquitted on Pertuduhan Kedua (Amended Second charge) under section 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan.