Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Outraging modesty

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2026

MIRELFYAN BIN AMIR

Citation

BD-62JS-5-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-62JS-5-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On full evaluation the prosecution evidence was credible and coherent: victim's consistent testimony, medical findings consistent with penetration, corroborative witness behaviour and discovery of victim's images on accused's phone established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused's bare denial did not raise a reasonable doubt; convicted on S.377CA, S.354 and S.292 and sentenced accordingly.
12 Jan 2026

CHEAH LYE AUN

Citation

PB-83JS-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PB-83JS-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendant used criminal force to outrage the victim's modesty (s354) and voluntarily caused grievous hurt (s325) because the complainant's testimony was consistent, credible and corroborated by SP2 and medical evidence (SP6) establishing compression fracture of L2 and posterior 10th rib fracture; the defendant's bare denial and uncorroborated defence failed to raise reasonable doubt and intent/knowledge was properly inferred from the nature and degree of force used.
14 Nov 2024

MOHAMMAD IZAUDIN BIN ABD. WAHAB [ ]

Citation

DA-42S(A)-4-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

DA-42S(A)-4-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defence evidence failed to raise reasonable doubt against the prima facie case previously found on appeal; there was no misdirection by the trial judge and credibility findings were supported by evidence and demeanor; thus convictions and sentences were affirmed.
13 Nov 2024

YUSSRI BIN YAHAYA

Citation

AA-41S-20-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-41S-20-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, ignored corroborative absence and evidence of motive to fabricate, and did not give adequate weight to the appellant's plausible innocent explanation (routine entry to collect laundry); these failures produced reasonable doubt as to the elements of Section 354 and amounted to misdirection warranting allowance of the appeal and acquittal of the appellant.
27 Sept 2024

SOBRI BIN HARUN

Citation

AP-83-28-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AP-83-28-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because the complainant's testimony was not unusually convincing (inherent improbability in the description of the act, material contradictions with investigating officer's evidence and complainant's subsequent conduct), there was no independent corroboration, the prosecution withheld testimony of a material witness (Fatin) invoking s114(g) Evidence Act 1950, WhatsApp screenshots lacked admissible foundation and the police investigation was incomplete; therefore the accused was not called to enter defence and was acquitted and discharged.
21 Jul 2023

NASHARUDIN BIN AZIZ

Citation

AB-83JS-10-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83JS-10-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The magistrate found the prosecution established all elements of s354 and s448 beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim's credible and consistent testimony corroborated by prompt police report and victim's mother's observations and by circumstantial facts of unlawful entry; the defence alibi was a late afterthought and unreliable, therefore conviction on both counts was warranted and fines with default imprisonment were appropriate.
8 Jul 2022

MD AZIZUL HOQUE

Citation

MA-83-861-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-83-861-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the unequivocal guilty plea and mitigating factors but found the offence sufficiently serious and aggravated (co-worker victim, early morning, invasive touching) so that public interest and deterrence outweighed a substantial reduction; therefore the conviction and a 15‑month imprisonment sentence running from date of arrest were appropriate and proportionate under Section 354 Kanun Keseksaan.
20 May 2022

Public Prosecutor Preevan a/l Chanderan

Citation

BH-83JS-20-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH-83JS-20-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the victim's uncontradicted evidence corroborated by an eyewitness (PW1) that the accused intentionally touched the victim's back without consent; that touching constituted criminal force and, in the circumstances, would outrage modesty of a reasonable person; intoxication defence was not established; Whatsapp screenshots were inadmissible secondary evidence; therefore prosecution proved a prima facie case and, after full trial, the accused was guilty under s.354 and sentenced accordingly.
30 Sept 2021

PREM ANAND A/L LOGANATHAN

Citation

PA-41S-18-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-41S-18-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate failed to properly evaluate material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, accepted uncorroborated inferences from CCTV without positive identification, relied on white paint stains that were not forensically linked to the scene, and overlooked incomplete police investigations and unexplained conduct by the complainant; those failures raised reasonable doubt and vitiated the conviction under section 354 Penal Code.
22 Jul 2020

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR;KAMARUL AZAMIN BIN MOHAMAD KAMARUL AZAMIN BIN MOHAMAD; PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

WA-42JSKH-1-01/2019; WA-42JSKS-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42JSKH-1-01/2019; WA-42JSKS-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the proved facts (touching over clothing and compelling the child to touch the teacher) did not satisfy the statutory and factual threshold for s377E but constituted assault/criminal force with intent to outrage modesty under s354; the Sessions Court erred in relying on the school's internal investigation and the judge's site visit when sentencing; accordingly the conviction was recorded under s354 and the sentence was varied to fines of RM10,000 for each charge given mitigation and first offender status.