Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing review

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

Citation

JA-42JSKH-7-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-42JSKH-7-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the trial judge's assessment that the complainant's testimony was detailed, consistent and unusually convincing such that the conviction under s.14(a) Act 792 was safe; alleged investigative deficiencies and afterthought defences did not undermine the direct evidence; the accused's alibi was excluded for failure to give statutory notice; sentencing was varied in the prosecution's cross-appeal increasing imprisonment from 6 to 7 years while maintaining three strokes and rehabilitation/supervision orders (with police supervision adjusted to 2 years).
23 Jan 2026

ABDUL JALIL BIN JAMALUDIN

Citation

WA-42S-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42S-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conviction and sentence affirmed because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had actual possession and knowledge of two separate cannabis exhibits; the chain of custody was satisfactorily established and amendments to Pol 31 were adequately explained; the defence evidence and videos did not raise a reasonable doubt or support the planting allegation; trial judge's credibility findings were proper and not liable to appellate interference.
12 Nov 2025

JIVA A/L GOPAL KRISHNAN

Citation

05(RJ)-11-12/2024(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

05(RJ)-11-12/2024(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that on a literal reading of Act 847 ss2(1) and 4(1) persons who had already been granted pardons under Article 42 are not within the category 'any person who has been sentenced to death' for the purposes of making an application under s3(1); furthermore the courts have no jurisdiction to review or set aside decisions of the Pardons Board or the royal prerogative of mercy, and therefore the majority decision dated 27.8.2024 was ultra vires and is set aside.
18 Jun 2025

IDRES BIN ISMAIL [ ]

Citation

DA-41S(A)-2-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

DA-41S(A)-2-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conviction is upheld because the accused's defence was a late, unsupported bare denial/afterthought that failed to discharge the evidential burden to rebut the prima facie case; the failure to call material witnesses and to provide corroborative evidence justified the trial court's acceptance of prosecution evidence. The RM4,000 fine (or 6 months imprisonment if unpaid) and two-year supervision order are not manifestly excessive and are affirmed.
21 Apr 2025

JUBANG ANAK USIN [ ]

Citation

Q-05(SH)-600-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

Q-05(SH)-600-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held prosecution proved ingredients of s26A ATIPSOM by evidence including PW5 and corroboration from appellant's cautioned statement admissible under s18A SOSMA; PW5, though an accomplice, was credible and sufficiently corroborated; non-production of Hadi did not create a gap warranting adverse inference; alibi was an afterthought and not sufficient to raise reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed and conviction and six-year sentence affirmed; stay granted on stated bail terms.
17 Mar 2025

MOHD SHARWANDY BIN SOLLAHUDIN

Citation

KA-42ES-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-42ES-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the charges under s68(2)(a) and s86(1)(c) are distinct offences (general keeping vs keeping in a manner causing suffering) so no double jeopardy arises; the prosecution adduced sufficient prima facie evidence of 'menyimpan' by demonstrating custody/control of the 81 pangolins through rental/payment records, surveillance, presence and conduct of appellant, and seizure evidence; minor inconsistencies and alleged investigative gaps were immaterial; sentencing was within the trial court's discretionary range — accordingly all appeals were dismissed and convictions and sen…
5 Feb 2025

MOHAMED SAHUL HAMID BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN

Citation

AA-41S-15-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-41S-15-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution established a prima facie case: chemist identified 6.63g methamphetamine and chain of custody was intact; discrepancies in witnesses’ accounts were minor and immaterial; defence evidence (SD2) was unreliable and likely fabricated at defence stage; therefore conviction and magistrate’s sentence (30 months imprisonment and four strokes) were properly upheld.
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.
31 Jul 2023

AZMIL MUNTAPHA BIN ABAS

Citation

BA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

BA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the trial judge did not err in finding a prima facie case for the alternative offence under section 165 Penal Code: the prosecution established the accused was a public servant who received RM5,000 deposited into his account, the receipt was linked to requests concerning sentencing of the accused persons, and the statutory presumption under section 50(3) ASPRM 2009 applied and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities. SP3 and SP4, though implicated, were properly assessed as requiring corroboration but their evidence was found credible and corroborated by contempor…
30 Jun 2022

Poobalan A/l Rajah [ ]

Citation

BA-41S-11-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-41S-11-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Magistrate did not commit reversible error: the burden of proof remained on the prosecution, the failure to call certain witnesses did not render the prosecution case unsafe given other credible evidence and exhibits, adverse inference under s.114(g) was not mandatory, defence did not raise reasonable doubt, and convictions and concurrent sentences were accordingly affirmed.