KHAIRUL MUHSEIN BIN ABDULLAH

KHAIRUL MUHSEIN BIN ABDULLAH

Court found prosecution failed to prove the specific element of 'gross indecency' under Section 377D but accepted complainant's substantive identification and corroborative CCTV/evidence established the use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty; accordingly court properly amended the charge under Section...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CA-83JS-8-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Khairul Muhsein bin Abdullah
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 May 2025
Case Number
CA-83JS-8-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment/sentencing
Outcome
Original charge under Section 377D acquitted; convicted on amended charge under Section 354 Penal Code
Legal Topics
Outrages on Decency, Gross Indecency, Criminal Force, Corroboration, Admissibility of Exhibits, CCTV Evidence, Charge Amendment
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Outrages on Decency Gross Indecency Criminal Force Corroboration Admissibility of Exhibits +2 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Khairul Muhsein bin Abdullah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment/sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved elements of Section 377D (gross indecency)
  2. 2 Admissibility and weight of CCTV and other exhibits
  3. 3 Whether corroboration was present and sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

Court found prosecution failed to prove the specific element of 'gross indecency' under Section 377D but accepted complainant's substantive identification and corroborative CCTV/evidence established the use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty; accordingly court properly amended the charge under Section 173 CPC to Section 354, found defendant guilty on that amended charge and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, the defence having failed to raise a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Original charge under Section 377D acquitted; convicted on amended charge under Section 354 Penal Code

Orders

  • Original charge under Section 377D dismissed and acquittal recorded
  • Charge amended to Section 354 Penal Code under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code