Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporal punishment (whipping)

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

KUMANAAN A/L ANTHONY VINCENT PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

Citation

07-24-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

W
Case number

07-24-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Judgment held that judicial whipping prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code and federal penal statutes violates Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution and the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment reflected in Article 5 UDHR and customary international law; the Federal Court may invoke its inherent review jurisdiction in rare and exceptional circumstances to prevent grave injustice; the declaration of unconstitutionality is prospective and limited to whipping under the CPC and federal penal statutes, with all unexecuted whipping sentences stayed an…
20 Jan 2026

MOHD IZAQ FIKHRY BIN A RAHIM

Citation

KH-89-1-01/2026 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KH-89-1-01/2026 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The Magistrate who passed the original sentence has exclusive statutory jurisdiction under s.291(1) C.P.C. to determine issues arising from non-execution of whipping due to medical incapacity; having accepted the medical evidence that execution is wholly prevented, the court properly exercised its discretion and remitted the remaining three strokes rather than substituting them with additional imprisonment.
9 Dec 2025

NUR AZMUDDIN BIN MD NOOR [TIMBALAN ]

Citation

K-05(H)-175-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

K-05(H)-175-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal in part on sentencing ground: maintaining the minimum imprisonment term of 30 years but reducing the number of whipping strokes from fifteen to the minimal twelve because the guilty plea, mitigation (first offender, remorse, family circumstances) and the benefit to the co-accused justified limited interference with the whipping component while leaving the custodial sentence intact given the large quantity of drugs and statutory sentencing framework under s39B(2).
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-6-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-6-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the sentences were properly imposed to run consecutively because the offences were distinct in time and charged in separate cases; the one transaction rule did not apply; the aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment and 13 strokes was not manifestly excessive, was proportionate given the number and nature of offences under SOACA 2017 and justified by deterrence and public interest; appellate intervention was unwarranted and the appeal was dismissed.
4 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD ZABIR HARITH BIN BIDIN

Citation

JB-42JSKH-5-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42JSKH-5-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Offences were distinct in time across five separate cases therefore the one transaction rule did not apply; the trial judge did not err in principle or exercise of discretion; the cumulative sentence (20 years imprisonment and 13 strokes) is not manifestly excessive given statutory maxima, seriousness of offences, need for deterrence and public interest; appeal dismissed.
9 Jul 2025

SHAWN COLIN DOSS A/L ARPUTHAN DOSS

Citation

BA-62RS-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-62RS-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court convicted the accused of robbery with a deadly weapon; although an early guilty plea merited mitigation, the pattern of multiple robberies in the same month and public interest outweighed full mitigation; statutory constraint under s.292(1) KTJ required the sentence to commence after completion of the prior sentence, hence the court imposed 2 years' imprisonment and 3 strokes to commence after completion of BA-62RS-17-05/2025.
21 Oct 2024

MOHD MUNAWAR MOHD AZIZAN [ ]

Citation

Q-05(M)-175-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

Q-05(M)-175-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal on sentence, set aside the death sentence and substituted it with thirty years' imprisonment effective from 09.10.2018 and twelve strokes of whipping because the amended law (Act 846 and s39B) confers sentencing discretion, the prosecution failed to prove this was an exceptional case warranting death, and mitigating factors (cannabis as a soft drug, comparatively small quantity, first offender and prospects of reform) supported commutation.
18 Oct 2023

MOHD AZHARI BIN UMAR ALI

Citation

BA-42H-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42H-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed that the trial judge acted within lawful discretion; the 9-year concurrent prison terms with 3 strokes per count were not grossly excessive given armed nature of offences, two victims, applicant's prior related conviction, and public interest in deterrence; mitigation did not outweigh aggravating factors, so appeal is dismissed.
12 May 2022

SAIFUL IZMARIZAL BIN OTHMAN [ ]

Citation

AB-42S-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42S-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the prosecution proved seizure, marking, handing over and chemical analysis of distinct packets found in the accused's trouser pocket so the chain of custody was not broken; the accused failed to raise reasonable doubt; convictions on four charges were sustained; sentencing was varied applying the totality principle to avoid a crushing aggregate sentence and to reflect separate offences, resulting in substituted terms totaling eight years' imprisonment from 26.6.2019 and 13 strokes of whipping, with whipping to take effect consecutively under section 288(5) CPC.
12 May 2022

Saiful Izmarizal Bin Othman [ ]

Citation

AB-42S-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-42S-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved the accused possessed the drugs found in his trouser pocket with an intact evidential trail for the primary packets and positive chemical analysis; the alleged missing ancillary plastic bag did not break the chain of custody; however, applying the totality principle the aggregate imprisonment was excessive and was reduced to an 8‑year term with whipping totaling 13 strokes, effective from 26.6.2019, with whipping to take effect consecutively pursuant to CPC s.288(5).