Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence review

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

Citation

JA-42JSKS-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-42JSKS-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction because the trial judge correctly found the complainant's evidence to be detailed, consistent and 'unusually convincing' such that the conviction was safe despite investigative gaps and alleged afterthought defences; the alibi was properly excluded for failure to give statutory notice; on sentencing the court exercised its appellate power to increase imprisonment from 6 to 7 years while maintaining three strokes and ancillary rehabilitation and supervision orders, with police supervision reduced to 2 years.
5 Feb 2026

OTHMAN BIN DARUS

Citation

PB-42R(A)-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

PB-42R(A)-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial court rightly found the appellant a public officer who received RM10,800 by bank transfers as inducements to refrain from enforcement; SP11's testimony was credible and corroborated by independent bank records; section 50 presumption applied and the appellant failed to rebut it; investigative lapses did not render the prosecution case unsafe; conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.
30 Oct 2025

Mior Saifuldin Bin Mior Sharuddin [Pegawai Pendakwa (PDRM)]

Citation

BA-42JSKS-13-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42JSKS-13-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No miscarriage of justice arose from the change of judge; the succeeding judge was entitled under s261 KTJ to act on the complete recorded evidence; the complainant's evidence was unusually compelling and corroborated sufficiently to establish penetration and the victim's age, satisfying s376 KK; defence evidence was unconvincing and interest‑tainted; sentence of 13 years imprisonment and 5 strokes with ancillary orders was within lawful range and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld, imprisonment to run from 30.10.2025.
7 May 2025

Firdaus Azzamuddin Bin Arifin [TIMBALAN ]

Citation

B-09-96-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-09-96-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the indictment's time particulars were not materially defective and did not prejudice the appellant; lack of new vaginal tears did not negate penetration or the complainant's evidence; the trial judge was entitled to find the complainant credible and the inconsistencies were immaterial; accordingly the conviction under the rape provisions and the sentence (12 years' imprisonment and five strokes) were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed; bail paid for suspension of sentence to be returned to the surety.
24 Feb 2025

GAZI SOHAL

Citation

BA-42JSKS-11-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42JSKS-11-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the trial court's findings that the complainant was a credible and consistent witness; identified discrepancies were immaterial and understandable given trauma; absence of psychological/CIC/CCTV evidence did not prejudice the prosecution because oral testimony was sufficient; the amended charge was properly allowed and not prejudicial; alleged non-speaking judgment was only a typographical lapse and not material; defence account was inconsistent and failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly conviction and sentence were affirmed.
13 Dec 2024

THAMILSELVEN A/L P.RAJAMANICKAM

Citation

BA-42H-11-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42H-11-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the trial judge did not err in principle or misappreciate the evidence; the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was proportionate given the seriousness and repetitiveness of the offence and the appellant's two prior convictions; absent a clear legal error or manifest excess, appellate intervention was unjustified so the conviction and seven year sentence were affirmed pursuant to s.316(b)(ii) CPC.
14 Nov 2024

MUHAMMAD RIDZUAN BIN RAMLI

Citation

BA-41H-4-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-41H-4-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court held the magistrate's 2‑month imprisonment was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, exercised its revisionary power under section 31 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and substituted the sentence with a fine of RM1,000 or two weeks imprisonment in default.
12 Nov 2024

Kamaruzaman bin Hashim

Citation

KA-42(R)(A)-1-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

KA-42(R)(A)-1-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the successor Sessions judge materially misdirected himself by not independently considering the prosecution evidence before ordering the accused to enter their defence (breach of s.173/261 CPC) and that the prosecution also failed to call a material witness (Muhammad Mustaqim) thereby attracting an adverse inference under s.114 Evidence Act; those errors were material and could not be cured by s.422 CPC. Consequently convictions and sentences were set aside and appellants were acquitted; the prosecution's cross‑appeal against sentence was dismissed.
8 Oct 2024

MOHAMED HAMIDI BIN SUDIN [ ]

Citation

DA-42S-4-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-42S-4-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the prosecution proved penetration and lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt by cogent complainant testimony corroborated by medical findings and DNA/forensic evidence; the Sessions Court correctly found a prima facie case and properly called the accused to answer; there was no misdirection or factual error warranting appellate interference; accordingly the conviction and sentence (12 years’ imprisonment from date of arrest and 2 strokes) were affirmed.
16 Apr 2024

SAMSUDIN BIN MD SUPPIAN

Citation

B-09-101-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-09-101-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Although s.305 CPC restricts appeals against convictions after an unequivocal guilty plea, appellate courts retain power to review and set aside convictions that are illegal or where there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Court found the trial court complied with s.173(b) CPC, the plea was voluntary and unqualified, documentary evidence was read and admitted, and there was no procedural irregularity. Consequently the conviction was safe and the sentence (including the High Court's increase on cross-appeal) was not manifestly excessive; the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence…