MOHD AZIZULAKIM BIN DZULKIFLI

MOHD AZIZULAKIM BIN DZULKIFLI

The appeal is dismissed because the prosecution failed to include reference to section 16 in the charge sheet, and applying section 422 to cure that omission would prejudice the accused; therefore the High Court will not enhance the sentence sua sponte and upholds the trial judge's sentence of 6 years imprisonment and 2 strokes for the offence under section 14(b).

Citation
WA-42JSKH-2-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Accused: Mohd Azizulakim bin Dzulkifli; Prosecutor / Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 March 2026
Case Number
WA-42JSKH-2-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Hearing at High Court (decision Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence on count 2 upheld.
Legal Topics
Rape (s376(3) Penal Code), Sexual Molestation of a Child (s14(b) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017), Sentence Enhancement Under S16 of the Act, Application of S422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, Sentencing Principles: Retribution, Deterrence, Plea Discount
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Law Child Protection Law Criminal Procedure Rape (s376(3) Penal Code) Sexual Molestation of a Child (s14(b) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017) Sentence Enhancement Under S16 of the Act +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Azizulakim bin Dzulkifli

Appellant / Accused

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Hearing at High Court (decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentence enhancement under section 16 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 could be imposed despite omission in the charge
  2. 2 Whether section 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah can be applied to cure the omission without prejudice to the accused
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court may increase sentence in absence of prosecution appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the prosecution failed to include reference to section 16 in the charge sheet, and applying section 422 to cure that omission would prejudice the accused; therefore the High Court will not enhance the sentence sua sponte and upholds the trial judge's sentence of 6 years imprisonment and 2 strokes for the offence under section 14(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence on count 2 upheld.

Orders

  • Sentence of 6 years imprisonment and 2 strokes for offence under section 14(b) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 upheld
  • Counselling order for rehabilitation for one (1) year under section 26(1) of the Act maintained