ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

The High Court upheld the conviction because the trial judge properly assessed and accepted the complainant's detailed and consistent testimony as unusually convincing; the accused's alibi was rightly excluded for failure to give statutory notice; deficiencies in investigation were not fatal given corroborative independent evidence; sentence was varied on appeal under s316(b)(ii) KTJ to increase imprisonment to seven years while retaining three strokes and orders for rehabilitation and police supervision (2 years).

Citation
JA-42JSKS-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Prosecution (appellant in Cross Appeal; Respondent in Main Appeal): Pendakwa Raya; Accused (appellant in Main Appeal; Respondent in Cross Appeal): Abdul Basit Badar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Case Number
JA-42JSKS-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (sexual Offences Against Child) / High Court Appellate Hearing From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction upheld. Cross-appeal on sentence allowed in part: imprisonment increased from 6 to 7 years; corporal punishment of 3 strokes maintained; other orders modified as below.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Appeal Standard of Review, Credibility of Complainant, Alibi Notice, Investigation Adequacy, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Evidence Procedure Sexual Assault Appeal Standard of Review Credibility of Complainant +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution (appellant in Cross Appeal; Respondent in Main Appeal)

Abdul Basit Badar

Accused (appellant in Main Appeal; Respondent in Cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (sexual Offences Against Child) / High Court Appellate Hearing From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant acted with malicious motive or fabricated allegations
  2. 2 Whether investigation omissions (CCTV, DNA, phone forensics, witnesses) rendered trial unsafe
  3. 3 Whether alibi was admissible given failure to give statutory notice

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the conviction because the trial judge properly assessed and accepted the complainant's detailed and consistent testimony as unusually convincing; the accused's alibi was rightly excluded for failure to give statutory notice; deficiencies in investigation were not fatal given corroborative independent evidence; sentence was varied on appeal under s316(b)(ii) KTJ to increase imprisonment to seven years while retaining three strokes and orders for rehabilitation and police supervision (2 years).

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction upheld. Cross-appeal on sentence allowed in part: imprisonment increased from 6 to 7 years; corporal punishment of 3 strokes maintained; other orders modified as below.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction under s.14(a) Akta 792 affirmed
  • Cross-appeal allowed in part: sentence of imprisonment increased from 6 years to 7 years