ROSMAINI BIN ABDUL RAOF

ROSMAINI BIN ABDUL RAOF

The trial judge did not err: SP1's in‑court demeanour and testimony were credible; the belated statutory declaration and police report were afterthoughts and contested, did not create reasonably possible alternative hypotheses, and did not break the complete circumstantial chain pointing to the accused; refusal to recall SP1 was a proper exercise of discretion under Section 425 CPC; SP1's testimony was direct evidence and not inadmissible hearsay; alleged investigative defects were immaterial; the 10‑year sentence (with 14 months remand served) was within the appropriate range and not manifestly inadequate. All appeals dismissed and convictions and sentence affirmed.

Citation
JA-42H-13-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Accused/appellant: Rosmaini bin Abdul Raof; Prosecution/respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 November 2025
Case Number
JA-42H-13-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (cross Appeals) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; stay maintained with modified bail
Legal Topics
Grievous Hurt, Circumstantial Evidence, Witness Credibility, Recall of Witnesses, Hearsay, Investigative Defects, Section 325, Section 326 a, Section 425 CPC, Section 173 CPC
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Domestic Violence Sentencing Grievous Hurt Circumstantial Evidence Witness Credibility +7 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosmaini bin Abdul Raof

Accused/appellant

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (cross Appeals) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution witness SP1 was credible
  2. 2 Whether conviction based on circumstantial evidence was safe
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred in refusing to recall SP1

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err: SP1's in‑court demeanour and testimony were credible; the belated statutory declaration and police report were afterthoughts and contested, did not create reasonably possible alternative hypotheses, and did not break the complete circumstantial chain pointing to the accused; refusal to recall SP1 was a proper exercise of discretion under Section 425 CPC; SP1's testimony was direct evidence and not inadmissible hearsay; alleged investigative defects were immaterial; the 10‑year sentence (with 14 months remand served) was within the appropriate range and not manifestly inadequate. All appeals dismissed and convictions and sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; stay maintained with modified bail

Orders

  • Accused's appeal JA-42S-7-12/2024 dismissed
  • Prosecution's cross-appeal JA-42H-13-12/2024 dismissed