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.
4 May 2026
The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly found a prima facie case and that the victim's testimony, unusually convincing and corroborated by contemporaneous medical records admissible as public documents, proved penetration beyond reasonable doubt; no adverse inference was warranted because the doctor was offered and could have been subpoenaed by the defence; absence of DNA did not undermine the case given the time lapse; conviction and 12-year imprisonment affirmed but the corporal punishment was excessive and reduced from 12 to 8 strokes.
26 Jun 2025
The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction because cumulative defects (an irregular and prejudicial identification parade, material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony including intoxication, non‑production of a significant portion of CCTV footage permitting an adverse inference, and absence of the appellant's DNA on the victim) together raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt such that the conviction was unsafe; appellant acquitted and discharged.
26 Jun 2025
The conviction was unsafe because the identification parade was irregular and suggestive, the victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies and was affected by intoxication, crucial CCTV footage was not produced (warranting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), and forensic DNA did not link the appellant to the victim; the trial judge failed to properly evaluate these matters and the defence, such that a reasonable doubt existed. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's appeal ag…
24 Mar 2025
The court found prosecution proved the elements of s.394 Penal Code: the victim was assaulted and robbed during a group attack; in‑court identification corroborated by an identification parade, medical evidence and a video established participation of the accused in the group assault; under s.394 group liability applies so detailed proof of each participant’s specific act was unnecessary. Defence alibi and interested witness testimony were not credible or sufficient to raise reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused were convicted and sentenced.
21 Jan 2025
Conviction was unsafe because material forensic DNA evidence excluded the appellant as the source of DNA on victim's fingernails, brassiere and the window grill, the identification process was defective and of little value, inadmissible section 27 material was relied upon without discovery, and the trial court misapplied adverse inference under section 114(g); therefore appellate intervention to set aside conviction and sentence was required.
5 Dec 2024
The Court affirmed the trial judge: the identification evidence (victim and aunty at parade and in court) was reliable under Turnbull analysis; information and conduct of the accused led to discovery of ransom money and was admissible under s.27; serial-number matching and corroborating witness evidence established a ransom demand; the collective conduct supported an inference of common intention under s.34; cumulatively these facts satisfied proof beyond reasonable doubt, so convictions and sentences were affirmed.
18 Oct 2024
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts: for s.504 there was no evidence the accused's words objectively amounted to an intentional insult likely to provoke breach of the peace and the statement fell within protected expression; for s.332 the identification evidence was unreliable, medical injuries were minor and not clearly attributable to the accused, and there was reasonable apprehension of bias in investigation; accordingly all accused were acquitted and discharged at the end of the prosecution's case.
15 Aug 2024
The conviction was unsafe because the prosecution failed to investigate and disprove the appellant's asserted physical incapacity to grip and wield the parang and the identification evidence was unreliable due to photographic exposure, an inadequately documented parade and sole reliance on dock identification; cumulatively these defects raised reasonable doubt and required allowance of the appeal.
7 Feb 2024
The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in finding that reasonable doubt was raised; notwithstanding flaws in the second identification parade, eyewitness recognition corroborated by medical and investigative evidence established the respondent's identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the acquittal was quashed and the respondent convicted of murder (s302) and two counts of grievous hurt (s326).