Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplicity of charges

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

AMYRUL SHAH BIN KAMARUL ZAMAN

Citation

RA-62JSK-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

RA-62JSK-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution proved all material ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt by credible victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence, birth/registration documents and the accused's prior admission; the relationship was found legally prohibited (stepfather/stepchild) despite lack of local marriage registration, duplicity objections rejected because counts were particularized, and defence alibis and witnesses were disbelieved or unpersuasive; accordingly the accused was convicted on all six counts and sentenced as ordered.
18 Sept 2025

AMYRUL SHAH BIN KAMARUL ZAMAN

Citation

RA-62JSK-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

RA-62JSK-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court accepted the victim's consistent testimony corroborated by medical findings, documentary evidence (birth certificate), and the accused's prior admission in a related proceeding, finding all statutory elements of s.376B established (penetration, victim under 16, prohibited relationship). Duplicity and procedural objections were rejected as each incident was separately charged with sufficient particulars. Defence alibis and interested witness testimony were not enough to raise reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused was convicted on six counts and sentenced according to the gravity…
4 Jul 2024

MOHD ZAIROLNIZAN BIN MD NOR [ ]

Citation

T-05(SH)-199-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

T-05(SH)-199-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because the Court found the kidnapping elements and intent for ransom were proven beyond reasonable doubt by interconnected acts forming a single transaction, identifications were reliable and corroborated, SP13 was not an accomplice requiring exclusion, disclosures by accused admissible as leading to discovery under s27 Evidence Act, and the appellants' defences were bare denials/alibi unsupported by affirmative proof; therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.
4 Sept 2020

MOHD AFFERO BIN JAFFAR [No. K/P: 820102-06-6005] 1. ) ACP SHAMSUL AMRI BIN RAMLI 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN SELANGOR 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS

Citation

BA-25-50-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-50-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure by the disciplinary authority to disclose or explain the 'available evidence' it relied upon (as asserted in the respondents' affidavit) deprived the applicant of the opportunity to meet that material, amounted to procedural impropriety and irrationality, and therefore the decision to dismiss was quashed.

Malaysia Case Law

AMYRUL SHAH BIN KAMARUL ZAMAN

AMYRUL SHAH BIN KAMARUL ZAMAN

MOHD ZAIROLNIZAN BIN MD NOR [ ]

MOHD AFFERO BIN JAFFAR [No. K/P: 820102-06-6005] 1. ) ACP SHAMSUL AMRI BIN RAMLI 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN SELANGOR 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS