Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Competence of child witness

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2025

MOHD NASIRI BIN MOHD RADZI

Citation

RA-62JSK-40-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

RA-62JSK-40-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court convicted the accused on all seven charges because the child complainant was competent and her sworn testimony was found credible and corroborated by medical findings and supporting witnesses; the defence alibi and interested defence witnesses failed to create reasonable doubt; sentencing followed statutory ranges and relevant principles, ordering specified prison terms and strokes with all sentences to run concurrently, counselling and police supervision, and compensation; the court refused to amend charges or apply a sentencing provision not included in the charge.
5 Sept 2024

MOHD KHAIRUL AMALI BIN NAMAN

Citation

WA-42JSKS-1-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42JSKS-1-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court conviction and concurrent sentences because the trial court properly found the child witness competent after s133A testing, found the child’s sworn evidence credible and unusually convincing notwithstanding immaterial inconsistencies, the prosecution proved the elements of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt, and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt or demonstrate trial misapprehension; sentencing was appropriate and properly considered.
25 Mar 2024

BUVENTHIRAN A/L PARAMASIVAM

Citation

AB-42JSKS-5-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42JSKS-5-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of credible child witnesses whose competence and testimony were satisfactory under the 2017 Act; the intoxication defence failed because intoxication was self-induced, no medical opinion established incapacity to know the nature/wrongness of acts, and the appellant retained cognitive faculties; there was no basis to draw adverse inference; the two offences formed one transaction and concurrent sentences and the imposed terms were appropriate.
24 Jul 2022

MOHAMAD ASRI AFIQ BIN ZUL [ ]

Citation

DA-42JSKS-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-42JSKS-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the trial judge did not err: the elements of s376(1) were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant's credible and detailed testimony supported by medical and witness evidence; s402A alibi notice was not triggered; formal s118 competency testing was unnecessary; inconsistencies were minor; therefore conviction and sentence were affirmed.
23 Nov 2021

MOHD RIDZUAN BIN MOHD YASIN

Citation

DA-42S-12-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-42S-12-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held discrepancies on time and minor inconsistencies were immaterial; victim's evidence was credible and supported by police report, medical findings and electronic communications; victim was mature enough that s.133A did not apply; inference of penile penetration established; accordingly conviction under s.376(3) Kanun Keseksaan and consecutive sentences were affirmed.
1 Nov 2021

[ ] Halidon Bin Samsuri

Citation

BA-42JSKH-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42JSKH-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 6 of the 2017 Act is constitutional and does not breach Articles 5 or 8; the High Court properly found the child witnesses competent after inquiry and properly admitted the video-recorded testimony; inconsistencies in accounts were immaterial, the trial judge's credibility findings were justified and entitled to deference, and conviction was safe on the evidence of SP5 supported by SP6 and SP9; sentencing was inadequate so prosecution appeal allowed and original 12-month sentence substituted with 30 months imprisonment, implementation suspended pending further appeal.
3 Feb 2021

1. AHMAD MOSLEM HAQQANI BIN ROSLI 2. MUHAMAD AMYRUL NAZMY BIN RUSDI 3. MOHAMED IRFAN HAKIM BIN MOHAMED NAWI

Citation

DA-42S-8-05/2019 & DA-42S-10-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-42S-8-05/2019 & DA-42S-10-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court did not err: the child complainant was competent to give sworn evidence under s118 without a mandatory preliminary s133A inquiry; in‑court identification and medical evidence (new hymenal tear and injuries) corroborated the complainant and established penetration despite no semen; kawad cam defects were irrelevant given positive dock identification; the prosecution established a prima facie case and convictions and sentences were proper and not excessive, therefore the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
12 Aug 2020

PENDAKWARAYA IDRIS BIN MOHAMED

Citation

42JSKLB-10-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

42JSKLB-10-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the High Court held the trial judge correctly exercised his fact‑finding function: defence evidence and omissions in investigation (failure to take SD2/Aimi statements and to seize the mobile phone) created reasonable doubt and the complainant's evidence was not sufficiently 'unusually convincing' to dispense with corroboration; therefore acquittal at the end of defence was properly maintained.
20 Feb 2020

Baharudin bin Mat Nor

Citation

AB-41S-4-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-41S-4-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the magistrate did not commit an appealable error: child witnesses were competent and any irregularity in holding the s.133A inquiry after oath was curable and caused no prejudice; prior incidents were inadmissible and were not considered; delay in investigation did not prejudice the defence given overwhelming evidence; conviction under s.354 PC was safe. However, sentencing was excessive in context and was varied under s.316 CPC to substitute imprisonment with a RM5000 fine based on mitigating factors (age, remorse, apology, financial hardship, rehabilitation) and discret…