SYAMSUL ZAMAN BIN SUKRI

D-07-113-12/2023 Kand. 14 13/03/2024 15:11:47 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: D-07-113-12/2023 BETWEEN SYAMSUL ZAMAN BIN SUKRI - APPLICANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - RESPONDENT [ In the Matter of the High Court of Malaya at Kota Bharu In Kelantan Criminal Appeal No: DA-41S-10-03/2023 Between Syamsul Zaman bin Sukri - Appellant And Public Prosecutor - Respondent ] 1 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal CORAM: HADHARIAH BIN SYED ISMAIL, JCA AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, JCA AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, JCA JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The applicant was tried in the Magistrate Court at Kota Bharu, Kelantan with an offence under section 377D of the Penal Code (gross indecency). The charges preferred reads as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 16/12/2020 jam lebih kurang 1.15 pagi, di sebuah bilik 201, The Infinite Hotel, Lot 752 Batu 5, di dalam daerah Kota Bharu, di dalam negeri Kelantan telah melakukan kelucahan melampau kepada penama Mohammad Saifuddin bin Yahya (No. KP: 900709-03-5811) dengan mencium pipi kiri penama, menggeselkan kemaluan kamu pada paha penama dan memegang kemaluan penama, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 377D Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama". [2] The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charge. [3] In support of its case, the prosecution called five (5) witnesses to testify against the applicant. 2 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [4] At the end of the prosecution’s case, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the applicant and called upon him to enter his defence on the charge. [5] At the end of the trial, the learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty on the charge and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for the period of thirteen (13) months. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run immediately (9/3/2023). [6] Dissatisfied by the said decision, on 12/3/2023, the applicant appealed to the High Court Kota Bharu against both conviction and sentence. [7] On 21/11/2023, the learned High Court Judge dismissed the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence. [8] Aggrieved by the decision of the learned High Court Judge, the applicant filed Notice of Motion (enclosure 1) dated 4/12/2023 for leave to appeal from this Honourable Court pursuant to section 50(2) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964. The Prosecution’s Case [9] We shall now briefly lay out the background facts leading to the charge. 3 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [10] On 15/12/2020 around 11pm SP1 narrated that the accused came picked him at Infinite Hotel, his hotel and the two later went for a ride around Pengkalan Chepa. After that, the two later went back to Infinite Hotel. SP1 narrated that the accused asked SP1 to follow him to PCB Resort as he lodges there, however rejected. [12] SP1 narrated that the accused asked to sleep over at his hotel. SP1 offered to open up a new room but the accused asked that he just sleep at SP1’s room. As the accused is a well-known figure, he could not reject. [13] The two then went up to room 201. In that room there was a bed with mattress. As SP1 was exhausted, he asked the accused to sleep on his bed while he slept on the toto on the floor. The accused requested that as he is the owner he should sleep on the bed with him and SP1 followed. As he saw SP1 tired he also offered for massage but rejected by SP1. The accused then kissed him on the cheek and told that it was just a joke. [14] Around 1.15am on that day while sleeping, he felt heavy. Once he woke up he saw accused’s genital on his left thigh, rubbed it to SP1 while the accused left-hand was in his pant grabbed SP1 genital. [15] SP1 felt uneasy, shocked and left the room. He pretended held his phone while told the accused that there were customers waiting to check in. On his way to the lobby, he bumped with his sister, SP2. SP2 narrated that he saw SP1 nervous running to the lobby. SP1 later asked to be brought to the police station. SP3 also present as he brought SP2 to the hotel for plumbing. SP3 also mentioned that SP1 seems nervous. 4 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [16] SP3 brought SP1 to Badang police station. Police report was lodged at 2.00 am on the same day. Badang policemen told SP1 to go to IPD Kota Bharu to meet with the Investigating Officer. Questions of Law [17] In the affidavit in support of the application affirmed on 4/12/2023 (enclosure 2) reference was made to three (3) questions said to be such questions of law and they are as follows: (1) Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kota Bharu dalam Kes Rayuan Jenayah No. DA-41S-10-03/2023, Syamsul Zaman Bin Sukri lawan Pendakwa Raya yang telah diberikan pada 21/11/2023 di mana YA Hakim telah menolak rayuan Pemohon terhadap sabitan dan hukuman berhubung keputusan yang telah diputuskan oleh Tuan Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kota Bharu pada 9/3/2023 di mana persoalan isu undang-undang telah dibangkitkan dalam rayuan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: (a) Sama ada YA Hakim telah terkhilaf dari segi undang- undang apabila menyatakan di dalam penghakiman beliau bahawa masa bukan elemen yang penting, dengan izin "time is not an essence" walhal masa kejadian adalah spesifik dinyatakan di dalam pertuduhan dan terdapatnya percanggahan jelas berkenaan masa kejadian yang spesifik, dan juga sama ada berlaku atau tidak kesalahan berdasarkan percanggahan-percanggahan yang wujud di dalam keterangan saksi-saksi Pendakwa Raya; 5 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) Sama ada YA Hakim telah terkhilaf dari segi undang- undang apabila menolak pembelaan Pemohon yang jujur dan dengan izin, "innocent'' yang mana pihak pembelaan telah membangkitkan isu pergerakan Pemohon di musim Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (PKP) ketika pemeriksaan balas semasa kes Pendakwaan dan telah dijelaskan oleh Pemohon ketika bela diri; dan (c) Sama ada YA Hakim telah terkhilaf dari segi undang- undang apabila gagal mempertimbangkan satu pengiktirafan penghakiman, dengan izin, ''judicial notice" berkenaan musim PKP dan bahawa Pemohon telah mendapat keizinan pihak berkuasa apabila pergi untuk mengutip derma ke beberapa jajahan di negeri Kelantan sepertimana yang telah dinyatakan oleh Pemohon di dalam pembelaannya. The Relevant Provision of Law Section 50(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 reads as follows: Jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal appeals (2) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, against any decision of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter decided by a Magistrates' Court by such appeal shall be confined to only question of law which have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision. 6 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Principles of Laws in Granting Leave to Appeal [18] It is trite law that appeals arising from decisions of the Magistrate’s Court in criminal matters that come before the Court of Appeal must necessarily be confined to issues of law only and prior leave is required before an appeal can be lodged in the Court of Appeal. The applicant must show whether or not there exist questions of law, while it is not so required on the part of the Public Prosecutor. [19] In Public Prosecutor v. Rahmat Bin Ghazali & Another Appeal [2020] MLJU 1954, the Court of Appeal held that: “[9] Section 50 gives jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to hear appeals from criminal matters decided in the High Court and it includes appeals from Sessions Court and Magistrates Courts. However, section 50(2) provides a limitation to the manner that appeals emanates from Magistrates Court are brought to the Court of Appeal. It must be noted that section 50(2) provides generally and without qualification that “an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal, with leave of the Court of Appeal”. It also enacts that “such appeal” shall only be confined to question of law. [20] This principle was further echoed in the Court of Appeal case of Nor Azman bin Ghazali v. Public Prosecutor [2013] 1 MLJ 486, where it held as follows: “[12] From the express wording of s 50 and in particular to sub-s (2) thereof, for the Court of Appeal to be conferred jurisdiction two pre- conditions must be fulfilled by the applicant, namely: 7 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) a leave application must be filed within 14 days from the date of the High Court decision; and (b) it must be shown in the leave application the question of law which arose in the course of the appeal and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal.” [13] The pre-requisites aforesaid was lucidly explained by Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA in Public Prosecutor v. Pasupathy s/o Kanagasaby [2001] 2 MLJ 143; [2001] 2 CLJ 753 where he said: When an accused person desires to appeal, the full force of sub-s (2) comes into play. He has to apply for ‘leave’ and that his appeal must be confined to only questions of law which have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision.” [17] The crucial element of ‘question of law’ must in our view relates to questions involving the interpretation of relevant and applicable legal principles. It is totally different from questions of facts which require references to facts and evidence and the inferences drawn from the facts. In essence questions of law are questions involving legal principles of wide applicability in diverse situations and not confined to any particular facts. [21] In Public Prosecutor v. Mahathir bin Muhammad [2013] 1 MLJ 50, the Court of Appeal speaking through Mohd Hishamudin JCA (as he then was) held as follows: 8 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “[20] The rationale for limiting the appeal to question of law only is not difficult to appreciate. The cases that emanate from the magistrate’s courts are relatively less serious in nature as compared to cases dealt with by the session courts, and in most cases, they involve only finding of facts. Hence, there is very minimal risk of real injustice if further appeals to the Court of Appeal should only be confined to questions of law.” [22] In PP v. Pasupathy Kanagasaby [2001] 2 CLJ 753 Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA (as he then was) held that: “When an accused person desires to appeal, the full force of sub-s. (2) comes into play. He has to apply for "leave" and that his appeal must be confined to only questions of law which have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision. To obtain “leave” in order to enable him to file the notice of appeal he has to satisfy the court that there are questions of law of the type as specified in sub-s(2) and he must formulate those questions for ease of recognition and determination by the court. If we may repeat, he must first obtain the “leave” before he can file the notice of appeal.” Our Decisions [23] We see no necessity for a detailed discussion on the evidence presented. It is covered in the reasons of the trial court in a manner which we find convincing. Our decisions will therefore be brief. 9 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [24] At the start of the party’s submission, the learned counsel for the applicant informed us that he will confine his submission only on the issue that the prosecution has failed to prove the exact time of the alleged incident as stated in the charge. The learned counsel contention, are as follows: 1. Pihak kami menghujahkan bahawa saksi-saksi pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal mengingati masa sebenar kejadian. Walaupun peruntukan Seksyen 153(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah telah dipenuhi, namun ianya tidak selaras dengan pertuduhan, di mana SP1 telah menyatakan masa kejadian adalah dalam 11.00 malam semasa pemeriksaan utama oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya di peringkat Pendakwaan. Sedangkan, pertuduhan menyatakan kejadian adalah pada jam 1.15 pagi. 2. Laporan polis yang dibuat oleh SP1 sendiri menyatakan bahawa pada jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, SP1 baru tiba di hotel, dan semasa diperiksa balas oleh Peguambela semasa di peringkat Pendakwaan juga, SP1 menyatakan bahawa Pemohon baru sahaja tiba di the Infinite Hotel iaitu di tempat kejadian. Sewaktu diperiksa balas oleh Peguambela juga, SP1 menyatakan bahawa semasa beliau berada di dalam bilik bersama Pemohon untuk berehat, SP1 tersedar pada jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi, dan apabila ditanya berkenaan jam dinding atau jam tangan pada ketika itu menunjukkan pukul berapa, SP1 menyatakan anggaran pada jam 1.30-1.45 pagi. 3. Oleh kerana keterangan SP1 ini tidak konsisten dan tidak meyakinkan berkenaan isu masa kejadian sebenar, dapatlah 10 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dilihat bahawa keterangan sokongan juga perlu. Pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil SP2 yang pastinya bukanlah untuk membuktikan saksi mata kejadian, namun saksi berkenaan masa kejadian sebenar. Semasa pemeriksaan utama oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, SP2 menyatakan bahawa semasa beliau tiba di lobi Hotel Nurul Eki milik beliau, SP2 melihat abang beliau iaitu SP1 turun ke lobi hotel milik SP1 sendiri pada jam 12.30 pagi dan dalam soalan yang lain pula oleh Peguambela, SP2 menyatakan beliau melihat abang beliau iaitu SP1 turun ke lobi pada jam 12.45 pagi. SP2 kemudiannya menyatakan bahawa SP1 pergi membuat laporan polis pada jam 2.00 pagi. 4. Dihujahkan, keterangan SP2 masih tidak dapat menyokong masa kejadian sebenar sepertimana dipertuduhkan, memandangkan pada jam 12.30- 12.45 pagi, SP1 dilihat sudah berada di hotel dan jelas bercanggah dengan keterangan SP1 sendiri yang menyatakan beliau baru tiba kembali di hotel pada jam 1.00 pagi. SP2 juga menyatakan semasa diperiksa balas oleh Peguambela bahawa pada jam 12.45 hingga 1.45 pagi, SP1 tidak berada di tingkat atas hotel beliau dan berada di bawah lobi hotel SP1 serta sibuk bermain telefon bimbit. 5. Seterusnya, SP5 selaku Pegawai penyiasat telah menyatakan apabila diperiksa balas oleh Peguambela bahawa anggaran masa SP1 memberitahu Pemohon bahawa beliau ingin tidur adalah pada jam 1.30 ke 1.40 pagi. Sekiranya mengikut laporan polis, pada jam 1.15 pagi SP1 baru tiba di Hotel The Infinite setelah bersiar-siar dengan Pemohon. 11 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6. Justeru, walaupun pertuduhan adalah lengkap sepertimana peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 153(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, namun masa di dalam pertuduhan tidak dapat berdiri dengan kukuh kerana bercanggah dengan keterangan saksi-saksi pihak Pendakwaan sendiri. 7. YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi di Kota Bharu (2), Kelantan telah menyatakan dalam Penghakiman yang disampaikan secara lisan bahawa 'time is not an essence' dan pihak kami menghujahkan bahawa masa sebenarnya adalah 'essence' dalam kes ini memandangkan pertuduhan menunjukkan masa yang khusus, dengan izin, 'specific time' dan bukannya anggaran masa dari satu masa tertentu ke satu masa tertentu secara, dengan izin, 'general'. 8. Oleh yang demikian, pihak kami menghujahkan bahawa walaupun dilihat pertuduhan ke atas Pemohon adalah selaras dengan peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 153(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, namun pihak Pendakwaan sebenarnya telah gagal untuk memastikan pertuduhan dapat berdiri dengan kukuh daripada sudut masa sebenar kejadian. Pihak Pendakwaan juga tidak berjaya untuk membuktikan masa kejadian yang tepat mengikut 'specific time' yang dinyatakan oleh pihak Pendakwaan sendiri bagi pertuduhan ke atas Pemohon. 11. Pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal mengemukakan pembuktian dari sudut transaksi masa melalui keterangan SP1 yang menyatakan perbuatan Pemohon mencium pipi, menggeselkan kemaluan di atas peha kiri beliau dan tangan Pemohon yang 12 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dikatakan berada di dalam seluar SP1 melibatkan kejadian pada masa yang sama sepertimana pertuduhan iaitu 1.15 pagi. 12. Pihak kami turut menghujahkan bahawa keraguan yang telah ditimbulkan dari sudut percanggahan masa yang ketara daripada keterangan saksi saksi pihak Pendakwaan telah mengelirukan Pemohon di dalam kes ini dan tidak dapat dipulihkan atau diselamatkan di bawah Seksyen 156 dan Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, memandangkan wujudnya 'failure of justice' secara material. Pemohon juga memikul tanggungjawab yang sukar sekiranya bergantung kepada pembelaan alibi di bawah Seksyen 402A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah kerana Pemohon tidak mengetahui masa sebenar kesalahan dilakukan. Oleh yang demikian, kami di pihak Pemohon memohon agar Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk merayu di dalam kes ini. [25] In explaining the discrepancy of time, the learned Magistrate in his ground of judgment, which we reproduce herein below, said: “34. Next the defence argued extensively on SP1 testimony and other prosecution witness as to discrepancy of time. This contention as argued by defence ultimately made SP1 allegation is false and fabricated. The Defence argued that each witness spelled out different time frame and thus these discrepancies rooted to SP1 credibility and towards his story. The Learned Defence Counsel also contended that the SP2 and SP3 added to this failure because they both narrated different time frame of what they saw that night. 13 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35. This court view that discrepancy on time in this case, is irrelevant. Although there were discrepancies, these discrepancies were minor and fully explained by the witnesses. Plus, what important here is that every witness testified that it was midnight to morning. The fact that it happened at night is undisputed. To provide exact minute on the act will defeat any sexual offences case and thus, I dismissed the contention. 36. Discrepancies exist in every witnesses of the court. I am of the opinion that it is a normal and minor discrepancies which does not lead to destruction of prosecution case. The fact in issue remains whether the act has been committed, and whether the prosecution sufficiently adduced that the act was done. Based on SP1’s evidence, I find it was sufficiently adduced. 37. For SP2, although she stated different time frame, her evidence on SP1 look nervous is more relevant than discrepancies as to time. As mentioned before, this is just a minor discrepancy which this Court termed as not shredding the prosecution case. SP3 also been grilled by the defence on this narrative. I also ruled based on my assessment as SP2 above. This instant, after evaluating both SP2 and SP3 carefully as they related to SP1, I find there was nothing unacceptable as to their evidence. Thus, I accepted their evidence as they are credible and reliable. 38. I also accepted evidence given by SP4 and SP5. SP4 is police photographer who had adduced the photographs on the scene. SP5 as the IO also given a credible evidence on this case. Discrepancy exists in her evidence also on time but I find it is irrelevant. SP5 who 14 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal met with SP1 that morning also adduced that he was nervous. This fact also been taken into consideration. She had done a thorough investigation and had given unshaken testimony on this case. Although suggestion after another by the Defence counsel, her evidence on this case investigation remain intact. Thus, I accepted their evidence. [26] Having read the learned Magistrate’s grounds of judgment, we find that the applicant had failed to raise any questions of law but instead merely advanced question of fact which have been appropriately addressed in detail by the trial court. [27] In the premises, we unanimously find that this is not a fit and proper case for leave to appeal to be granted. The application is therefore dismissed. Date: 12 Mac 2024 - sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Counsel For the Appellant: Encik Ahmad Adha Amir Cik Nur Sarah Shamimi [ADHA & CO.] For the Respondent: Noorhisham bin Mohd Jaafar (Deputy Public Prosecutor) 15 S/N ARocDOp58UmrOMOxZFkbjQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal