ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

The High Court upheld the trial judge's assessment that the complainant's testimony was detailed, consistent and unusually convincing such that the conviction under s.14(a) Act 792 was safe; alleged investigative deficiencies and afterthought defences did not undermine the direct evidence; the accused's alibi was excluded for failure to give statutory notice; sentencing was varied in the prosecution's cross-appeal increasing imprisonment from 6 to 7 years while maintaining three strokes and rehabilitation/supervision orders (with police supervision adjusted to 2 years).

Citation
JA-42JSKH-7-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Accused: Abdul Basit Badar; Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Case Number
JA-42JSKH-7-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Conviction upheld; sentence varied on cross-appeal
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault of a Child, Appeal Against Conviction, Sentencing Review, Witness Credibility, Investigation Adequacy, Alibi Notice
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Protection Criminal Procedure Sexual Assault of a Child Appeal Against Conviction Sentencing Review Witness Credibility +2 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Basit Badar

Accused

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was safe based on complainant's evidence and credibility
  2. 2 Whether defects in investigation (CCTV, phone forensics, DNA) prejudiced accused's right to a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether defence alibi was admissible given failure to give statutory notice

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the trial judge's assessment that the complainant's testimony was detailed, consistent and unusually convincing such that the conviction under s.14(a) Act 792 was safe; alleged investigative deficiencies and afterthought defences did not undermine the direct evidence; the accused's alibi was excluded for failure to give statutory notice; sentencing was varied in the prosecution's cross-appeal increasing imprisonment from 6 to 7 years while maintaining three strokes and rehabilitation/supervision orders (with police supervision adjusted to 2 years).

Court Disposition

Conviction upheld; sentence varied on cross-appeal

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction and sentence in JA-42JSKH-9-03/2025 dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence in JA-42JSKH-7-03/2025 allowed in part: imprisonment increased from 6 to 7 years; three (3) strokes of rotan maintained; order for rehabilitation counselling under s.26 Akta 792 maintained; police supervision under s.27 Akta 792 ordered for 2 years after release