PENAMA XXXX

PENAMA XXXX

Given the court's acceptance of the accused's unqualified plea, the evidence, mitigation and welfare reports, and the court's view that the conduct arose from immaturity and mutual agency of the children rather than the highest level of sexual violence, the Children Court exercised its statutory power under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DI-84-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant (kanak‑kanak): Muhammad Syawal Aiman bin Abdullah
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Case Number
DI-84-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Juvenile Criminal (sexual Offences) / Sentence Imposed in Children Court; Prosecution Appeal on Sentence Filed
Outcome
Children Court ordered three separate two‑year good‑behaviour bonds with RM5,000 security each and additional supervisory and rehabilitative conditions; prosecution filed an appeal against sentence.
Legal Topics
Rape (s376 Kanun Keseksaan), Sexual Assault on a Child (s14(d) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017), Sentencing of Children, Good‑behaviour Bond (s91 Child Act 2001), Judicial Balancing of Rehabilitation and Deterrence
Criminal Law Juvenile Law Sexual Offences Law Child Protection Rape (s376 Kanun Keseksaan) Sexual Assault on a Child (s14(d) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017) Sentencing of Children Good‑behaviour Bond (s91 Child Act 2001) +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Muhammad Syawal Aiman bin Abdullah

Defendant (kanak‑kanak)

Procedural Posture

Juvenile Criminal (sexual Offences) / Sentence Imposed in Children Court; Prosecution Appeal on Sentence Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether custodial sentence with mandatory terms was appropriate for a child offender
  2. 2 Whether a bond under Section 91(1)(b) of the Child Act 2001 was an appropriate disposal
  3. 3 Assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors in juvenile sexual offences

Ratio Decidendi

Given the court's acceptance of the accused's unqualified plea, the evidence, mitigation and welfare reports, and the court's view that the conduct arose from immaturity and mutual agency of the children rather than the highest level of sexual violence, the Children Court exercised its statutory power under s91(1)(b) Child Act 2001 to impose two‑year good‑behaviour bonds with RM5,000 security per charge plus conditions to prioritize rehabilitation over custodial punishment; prosecution appealed the adequacy of that sentence.

Court Disposition

Children Court ordered three separate two‑year good‑behaviour bonds with RM5,000 security each and additional supervisory and rehabilitative conditions; prosecution filed an appeal against sentence.

Orders

  • For each of the three charges: accused to execute a good‑behaviour bond for 2 years with security RM5,000 and one guarantor
  • Accused and guardian to attend interactive workshop organised by JKM