10 Jul 2025
Prosecution failed to prove the essential element of penetration under section 377B beyond reasonable doubt given inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and absence of medical or DNA corroboration; those failures created reasonable doubt and required acquittal.
2 Aug 2024
Trial judge correctly found that material inconsistencies and lack of reliable supporting evidence, coupled with failure to call the material witness Lang Mah (invoking s114(g)), meant the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case under s180(1) CPC; accordingly it was unsafe to order accused to plead and the High Court affirmed the order discharging the accused.
2 May 2024
WA-42S-4-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
12 Jul 2023
The employer attendance records and affidavit constituted fresh credible evidence that could not have been obtained at trial, were directly relevant to the accused's alibi and, when taken with existing evidence, would have raised reasonable doubt; prosecution also failed to exclude the possibility that others had access to the room/router, rendering the charge unsustainable – accordingly conviction could not stand and accused must be acquitted and discharged.
15 Apr 2022
Prosecution failed to prove the crucial element that the accused induced the complainant to part with RM20,000 by deception because the deception was shown to originate from a third party ('Tuan Haji') and not from the accused; additionally the charge was defective for failing to allege how the accused deceived the complainant and investigative omissions (absence of phone call logs/forensics) left reasonable doubt. Therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and released.
18 Dec 2020
Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offence at the close of its case: ownership of the funds as charged, that the accused misappropriated the funds, and dishonest intent. Significant contradictions in witness evidence and failures in investigation (no Immigration verification, missing emailed documents, inadequate proof of account ownership) meant no prima facie case existed; accordingly the accused was discharged under section 173(f)(ii) CrPC and bail returned.
16 Dec 2020
Appellate court held that on maximum evaluation of the prosecution case a prima facie case existed: the victim's consistent CIC testimony coupled with eyewitness PW2 and mother’s disclosure sufficiently identified the victim and established the sexual touching; omissions as to precise date/time and minor name discrepancies did not prejudice the accused or vitiate the charge because date/time were not essential; the recorded interview was admissible despite lack of certification because the recording officer testified and statutory and evidential provisions permit admission; therefore the Sess…
23 Oct 2020
Trial judge misdirected by rejecting a properly notified alibi at close of prosecution; prosecution failed to investigate or rebut the alibi (including failure to secure CCTV and to call the original investigating officer) and there was no positive identification by the child; cumulative defects made the conviction unsafe and appellate court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
29 Jul 2020
The High Court affirmed the trial judge's factual findings: the complainant's consistent in-court and CIC testimony, corroborated by medical evidence of hymenal tears consistent with penetration, satisfied the element of penetration beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and admissibility of supportive hearsay; there was no prejudice from imprecise date; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.
23 Jun 2020
Section 153(2) CPC is an enabling provision, not mandatory; the amended separate charges satisfied s153(1) by providing sufficient particulars and clarity; the appellant failed to demonstrate how non-amalgamation caused prejudice or provide evidence of mala fide or oppression by the prosecution; therefore there was no violation of fair trial rights and the appeal fails.