[TIMBALAN ] SITI BAINUN BINTI AHD RAZALI

[TIMBALAN ] SITI BAINUN BINTI AHD RAZALI

Applying the prima facie test and full evaluation at trial end, the court found direct eyewitness evidence (SP5) corroborated by medical expert testimony and the victim's account established all elements of s31(1)(a) Child Act 2001; omission of sub‑section in second charge could be corrected under s158 KTJ; s112 investigative statements are privileged and nondisclosure lawful; alternative accident theory unproven and challenged by expert testimony and failure to call material proposed witnesses. Therefore prosecution proved both offences beyond reasonable doubt and convictions follow.

Citation
WA-62-81-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: SITI BAINUN BINTI AHD RAZALI
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 May 2023
Case Number
WA-62-81-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Trial Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted on both counts under s31(1)(a) Child Act 2001 and sentenced
Legal Topics
Child Abuse, Neglect, Sentencing, Admissibility of S112 Statements, Witness Credibility, Amendment of Charge Under S158, Recall of Witnesses S173, Leading Questions to Child Witness, Prima Facie Test
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Child Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Child Abuse Neglect Sentencing Admissibility of S112 Statements +5 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 8 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

SITI BAINUN BINTI AHD RAZALI

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Trial Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved offences under s31(1)(a) Child Act 2001 beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether second charge defective for omission of sub‑section and whether court could amend under s158 CPC
  3. 3 Whether s112 police statements must be disclosed or are privileged

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the prima facie test and full evaluation at trial end, the court found direct eyewitness evidence (SP5) corroborated by medical expert testimony and the victim's account established all elements of s31(1)(a) Child Act 2001; omission of sub‑section in second charge could be corrected under s158 KTJ; s112 investigative statements are privileged and nondisclosure lawful; alternative accident theory unproven and challenged by expert testimony and failure to call material proposed witnesses. Therefore prosecution proved both offences beyond reasonable doubt and convictions follow.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on both counts under s31(1)(a) Child Act 2001 and sentenced

Orders

  • Pertuduhan Pertama: Imprisonment 10 years from date of conviction
  • Pertuduhan Kedua: Imprisonment 12 years from date of conviction