Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Police supervision

  • 5 Feb 2026

    ABDUL HOFUR

    Citation
    BC-62JSK-3-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BC-62JSK-3-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the victim's age, the accused's exploitation of a vulnerable child, the seriousness and repeated nature of the offences, and after affording mitigation for the guilty plea, the court found 9 years imprisonment and one stroke per count to be a proportionate sentence; sentences were ordered to run concurrently and ancillary orders under AKSTK ss.26 and 27 were imposed.

  • 5 Feb 2026

    ABDUL HOFUR

    Citation
    BC-62JSK-2-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BC-62JSK-2-01/2026 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court accepted guilty pleas as mitigating but found aggravating factors (victim vulnerability, offender being foreign national, seriousness of repeated offences). Sentences must reflect public interest and deterrence within statutory maxima. Consequently the court convicted and imposed nine years imprisonment and one stroke for each count, to run concurrently, plus counselling during imprisonment under s.26 AKSTK and two years police supervision under s.27 AKSTK.

  • 20 Nov 2025

    MOHD NASIRI BIN MOHD RADZI

    Citation
    RA-62JSK-40-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    RA-62JSK-40-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court convicted the accused on all seven charges because the child complainant was competent and her sworn testimony was found credible and corroborated by medical findings and supporting witnesses; the defence alibi and interested defence witnesses failed to create reasonable doubt; sentencing followed statutory ranges and relevant principles, ordering specified prison terms and strokes with all sentences to run concurrently, counselling and police supervision, and compensation; the court refused to amend charges or apply a sentencing provision not included in the charge.

  • 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).

  • 26 Apr 2024

    MOHD ALI BIN HASSAN

    Citation
    AC-62JSK-23-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62JSK-23-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Section 14(a) Akta 792 based on a competent and consistent child witness whose testimony was unusually convincing and corroborated by supporting witnesses and photographic identification; the accused's denial was mere denial and did not raise reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was convicted under Section 14(a) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with rehabilitative counselling during incarceration and one year police supervision after release; whipping was not imposed given judicial discretion and the…

  • 11 Oct 2023

    MUHAMMAD HAZIM NAZMI BIN HUSSEIN

    Citation
    AA-62JSK-77-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AA-62JSK-77-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Offence falls squarely within section 376(2)(d) requiring the statutory minimum imprisonment of ten years and whipping; having weighed aggravating factors (seriousness of sexual offence against a 10‑year‑old, public interest and deterrence) against mitigation, the court imposed the statutory minimum imprisonment and whipping together with police supervision and rehabilitative counselling as permitted by sections 295(1A) and 295(1).

  • 13 Sept 2023

    MOHD KHAIRIL BIN IDRIS

    Citation
    WA-62JSK-80-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62JSK-80-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Accused's unchallenged factual admissions established the offence of physical sexual molestation of a 15-year-old; balancing mitigating factors (early plea, remorse, first offence, personal circumstances) against aggravating factors (abuse of trust as uncle, application of force and threats, public interest) warranted a custodial sentence of 7 years, 3 strokes, mandatory rehabilitation counselling during imprisonment and 2 years police supervision after release.

  • 30 Jul 2023

    ANAS DANIEL BIN MOHD BAHRIN

    Citation
    JA-62JS-18-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    JA-62JS-18-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    After maximum evaluation the court found the complainant credible and consistent; medical and forensic evidence corroborated penetration and non-consensual acts including oral penetration and insertion of an object; chain of evidence and exhibits sufficiently linked accused to offences; defence amounted to bare denial and afterthoughts insufficient to raise reasonable doubt; therefore prosecution proved offences under ss 376, 377C and 377CA beyond reasonable doubt and concurrent custodial sentences and caning were appropriate.

  • 4 Mar 2021

    NUR FARIZA BINTI ZAINUDIN

    Citation
    JB-41H-82-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-41H-82-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    High Court found the Magistrate misdirected herself by recording that the appellant had no dependents despite mitigation evidence she was a single mother with four children (including a 10-month-old), and by failing to consider imposition of a fine; after admitting and considering AADK rehabilitation evidence (D6) the Court held intervention was justified and substituted the Magistrate's 10-month custodial sentence with a RM5,000 fine (4 months imprisonment in default) plus two years police supervision under s38B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

  • 25 Oct 2020

    FAIZUL BIN ASMAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

    Citation
    JB-41H-11-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-41H-11-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the learned Magistrate did not err in law or principle; the offences were not the same transaction so concurrency was not warranted, the appellant's attempt to mislead the court negated much mitigation from his guilty plea, and the 15-month imprisonment imposed was appropriate and is affirmed.