Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 354 penal code

Legal area

Court

5 Aug 2025

MOHD ISMAIL BIN ISHAK

Citation

JA-82JS-1-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82JS-1-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.354 because the complainant's evidence was not unusually convincing, there was no independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the offence, the complainant's conduct and long delay in reporting undermined credibility, and the court would not be prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case under s.173(f) CPC.
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…
13 Sept 2023

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] NIK SUHAIMI BIN NIK HUSSEIN

Citation

CF-83-279-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CF-83-279-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The charge was defective because it failed to allege the statutory elements of Section 354 (it used 'force' instead of 'assault' or 'criminal force' and 'dengan maksud' instead of the requisite intention/knowledge), the English Penal Code is authoritative, the defect concerned ingredients of the offence (not a mere particular) and therefore could not be cured under Sections 156 or 422 CPC; the defect prejudiced the accused and occasioned a failure of justice, so the prosecution did not make a prima facie case and the accused must be acquitted and discharged.
20 Aug 2023

MUGILAN A/L MANI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

JB-42S-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-42S-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given the violent nature of the offence (use of a knife, threats to kill, multiple injuries), absence of consent, and need for deterrence and public protection, the trial court did not err in principle and the 18-year imprisonment with 5 strokes is not manifestly excessive; mitigating factors of youth and drug influence were not sufficiently weighty to justify reduction; therefore appeal against sentence dismissed and original sentence upheld.
30 Sept 2021

PREM ANAND A/L LOGANATHAN

Citation

PA-41S-18-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-41S-18-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate failed to properly evaluate material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, accepted uncorroborated inferences from CCTV without positive identification, relied on white paint stains that were not forensically linked to the scene, and overlooked incomplete police investigations and unexplained conduct by the complainant; those failures raised reasonable doubt and vitiated the conviction under section 354 Penal Code.
30 Oct 2019

PENDAKWARAYA Tuan Hakim Amir Bin Abdul hamid MUBARIK HUSSAIN (NO .PASSPORT INDIA :K9497091)

Citation

BB-M2-83JS-32-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BB-M2-83JS-32-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court validly accepted the accused's guilty plea after ensuring through a sworn Hindi interpreter that he understood the charges and consequences; the facts admitted contained the ingredients of Section 354 Penal Code; having weighed mitigation (first offender, remorse, personal circumstances) against public interest and deterrence, the court convicted the accused on both charges and imposed 11 months imprisonment for each charge to run concurrently from date of arrest (24.09.2019).

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD ISMAIL BIN ISHAK

Nor Hafiz Bin Hanapi [ ]

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] NIK SUHAIMI BIN NIK HUSSEIN

MUGILAN A/L MANI [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

PREM ANAND A/L LOGANATHAN

PENDAKWARAYA Tuan Hakim Amir Bin Abdul hamid MUBARIK HUSSAIN (NO .PASSPORT INDIA :K9497091)