4 May 2026
The High Court held the victim's testimony was unusually convincing and was corroborated by admissible medical records; there was no suppression of material evidence and no misdirection by the trial court, therefore the conviction and 12-year imprisonment are safe; however the whipping term was reduced from 12 to 8 strokes as excessive.
29 Apr 2026
Court convicted because forensic evidence (P25) established accused's semen on the victim's clothing and medical evidence (P9) showed a fresh hymen tear consistent with recent penetration; notwithstanding some inconsistencies in witness statements, the totality of forensic and medical evidence and the inability of the defence to raise reasonable doubt led the court to find the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and to reject the alibi/denial.
27 Apr 2026
The High Court upheld the conviction because the trial judge properly assessed and accepted the complainant's detailed and consistent testimony as unusually convincing; the accused's alibi was rightly excluded for failure to give statutory notice; deficiencies in investigation were not fatal given corroborative independent evidence; sentence was varied on appeal under s316(b)(ii) KTJ to increase imprisonment to seven years while retaining three strokes and orders for rehabilitation and police supervision (2 years).
9 Apr 2026
The High Court held the payments to the appellant met the statutory definition of 'deposit' under s136 and that acceptance of those deposits without a licence contravened s137; the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence (Bank Negara witness, bank records, exhibit P4) and the absence of Dato' Seri Alex Teh did not vitiate the case because he was not traceable and the prima facie case was established; accordingly conviction and a four-year prison sentence were upheld.
9 Apr 2026
On the evidence and documents the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each accused received gratification (RM4,500 and RM1,500) derived from false procurement claims in contravention of s18 MACC Act, and neither reported the receipt as mandated by s25(1); credible and corroborated witness testimony and documentary trail overcame defendants' denials and defective alibi notices, warranting conviction and 12‑month custodial sentences for each accused.
6 Apr 2026
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.
6 Apr 2026
Court found prosecution established all essential elements: credible and consistent complainant testimony corroborated by eyewitnesses, timely reporting, medical evidence of anal fissure and vaginal abrasion consistent with non-consensual penetration, and identification of obscene images on accused's phone; defence denial was uncorroborated and did not raise reasonable doubt; accordingly accused convicted under S.377CA, S.354 and S.292 and sentenced as stated.
3 Apr 2026
Forfeiture under s80(3) and s80(4) APAD is discretionary, not automatic; the court must be satisfied on both the commission of the offence and the direct nexus of the vehicle to the offence and then exercise proportional judicial discretion taking into account mitigation (guilty plea, first offence), lengthy prior seizure, absence of injury or repeated wrongdoing, valid vehicle documentation and public interest. Applying these principles the court imposed a fine of RM27,500 with 8 months imprisonment in default and refused to order forfeiture of the lorry registration BSE8333.
30 Mar 2026
Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt: accused was sole driver of the vehicle in which 23,516.2 grams of methamphetamine were found; statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB 1952 was properly invoked to infer distribution; accused failed to rebut the presumption on balance of probabilities and the circumstances support application of wilful blindness; conviction under s.39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 followed and sentence of 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes was imposed.
30 Mar 2026
Prosecution proved identity and quantity of the drug by credible chemical analysis and maintained chain of custody; factual circumstances (open container containing packets found directly in front of accused while he sat alone, observation by police, lack of evidence of others' access) established control and knowledge. Defence was a bare denial which failed to raise reasonable doubt. Accordingly, court convicted the accused under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under Section 39A(1).