Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Sexual offences

  • 20 Nov 2025

    MOHD NASIRI BIN MOHD RADZI

    Citation
    RA-62JSK-41-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    RA-62JSK-41-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court accepted the child victim's sworn testimony as competent, credible and sufficient under ss.17 and 18 Akta 792, corroborated by medical findings and supporting witnesses; defence alibi and interested witness testimony were unreliable; thus elements of sexual assault under s.14(a) Akta 792 and rape under s.376(2)(f) Kanun Keseksaan were proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction and the sentencing orders made (concurrent imprisonment terms, caning as per statutes, compensation, rehabilitative counselling and police supervision).

  • 29 Jul 2025

    LIM YOKE PIN [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

    Citation
    CB-42JSKS-3-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-42JSKS-3-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appeal allowed and conviction and sentence quashed because the trial judge materially erred by failing to give proper judicial appreciation to the evidence: the judge conflated reliance on s18 with a finding that the child witness was 'unusually convincing', failed to identify independent corroboration (witnesses merely repeated SP6's account), did not adequately address inconsistencies and delays in the complainant's account, and improperly treated mere opportunity as dispositive; the findings were therefore unsafe and intervention was justified.

  • 14 Nov 2024

    MOHD HANAFI BIN MOHD ZAKI [ ]

    Citation
    DA-42S(A)-1-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    DA-42S(A)-1-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court dismissed the appeals because the earlier High Court order had established a prima facie case and the appellants' defence failed to create reasonable doubt; the appellate court must defer to trial findings on credibility and factual matters and there was no legal error or manifest unsafety in the convictions or in the sentences, which were not manifestly excessive.

  • 14 Nov 2024

    MOHAMMAD IZAUDIN BIN ABD. WAHAB [ ]

    Citation
    DA-42S(A)-3-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    DA-42S(A)-3-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appellate court upheld the convictions and sentences because a prior High Court judge had already found a prima facie case; the appellants' defence evidence failed to raise reasonable doubt on those findings, the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, no misdirection was shown, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and breach of public trust by police officers.

  • 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.

  • 2 Apr 2024

    Nor Hafiz Bin Hanapi [ ]

    Citation
    CB-41S(A)-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    CB-41S(A)-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court allowed the appeal because the convictions rested primarily on the complainant's testimony which was not shown to be unusually convincing and the supporting witness evidence derived from that complainant rather than providing independent corroboration; further, absence of clinical/treatment records, absence of testimony about accepted clinical procedure and the brief circumstances at the scene meant the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant exceeded clinical procedure or had criminal intent for offences under sections 354 and 377D, so conviction…

  • 6 Oct 2023

    MASRI BIN MUSA

    Citation
    AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court found the lower court applied correct sentencing principles, the aggregate punishment fell within statutory limits and was not manifestly excessive; however the court adjusted concurrency for specified counts by ordering the sentences in AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 and AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023 to run concurrently while otherwise upholding the lower court's sentences, resulting in no net change to total imprisonment as imposed.