Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Sentence

  • 23 Jan 2026

    SYED SHAH IQMAL BIN SYED MOHD SHAIFUL

    Citation
    BA-42S-9-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42S-9-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court was correct to infer that an order directing the accused to enter his defence imported that a prima facie case had been made out; after evaluating the totality of evidence including the complainant's credible testimony and supporting factors (complainant's background and mental health effects, accused's status and conduct, chronology and post-event conduct) the elements of rape under s.376(1) were established beyond reasonable doubt; the accused's defence was disbelief/denial with material contradictions and failed to raise reasonable doubt; and the sentence of 10 years impriso…

  • 9 Dec 2025

    MOHAMED SYAFFIQ BIN MOHAMED SIDEK

    Citation
    CA-42S(A)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    CA-42S(A)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held that although the prosecution proved receipt of RM700 by the accused, the essential element under s.17(a) ASPRM — that the money was received as an inducement to not perform an official act — was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; consequently the s.17(a) conviction was unsafe and set aside. However, the evidence established the accused, a public servant, received valuable property (RM700) knowing a proceeding involving him was possible, constituting an offence under s.165 Penal Code; the court substituted conviction under s.165 and sentenced the accused to one month impr…

  • 23 Oct 2025

    HASHMAT KHAN

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-88-02/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-88-02/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held that, given the statutory amendment providing an alternative to death and having regard to mitigating factors (young age, guilty plea, first offender) and public interest, the minimum alternative sentence of 30 years imprisonment from date of arrest and 12 strokes was appropriate and not to be disturbed; the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

  • 9 Jan 2024

    [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] ISLAM RABEA MOHAMED ISMAIL ELBANNA

    Citation
    WA-45A-36-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-45A-36-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Because the accused was observed alone holding the blue bag containing transparent-wrapped cannabis above the statutory weight and the chemist confirmed the weight, the statutory presumption of trafficking under Section 37(da) was triggered; the accused failed to rebut that presumption and his denial was disbelieved in light of credible police evidence, therefore the court convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

  • 16 Jan 2023

    [ ] 1. ) NYANASAMBANTHAM A/L MARIAPPAN 2. ) NAVEEN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

    Citation
    BA-42H-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42H-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the trial judge correctly found a prima facie case and properly assessed the evidence: discrepancies identified were immaterial or satisfactorily explained, identification by the victims was reliable given proximity and subsequent identifications, recovery of property was corroborative though not essential, and the elements of robbery under sections 395/397 were proven; therefore the convictions and sentences were safe and must be affirmed.

  • 17 Feb 2022

    Zailan Bin Jauhari [ ]

    Citation
    BA-42(R)(A)-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    R
    Case number
    BA-42(R)(A)-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the amendment of the charge was lawful and within judicial discretion; the prosecution proved receipt of RM20,000 cash and a RM60,000 cheque constituting a suap (bribe); section 50 ASPRM presumption applied to infer corrupt purpose and the appellant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; evidence including trap money, cheque and corroborating witness testimony was admissible and credible; hence the conviction and two‑year imprisonment and RM400,000 fine were upheld.

  • 20 Aug 2021

    [ ] Paramasivam A/l Ravintharan

    Citation
    AB-45B-1-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    AB-45B-1-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally inflicted injuries amounting to murder; independent eyewitness DW2 and the totality of evidence (damage to electric post, Puspakom report, braking/steering defects, investigative gaps, accused's immediate conduct and police report) raised reasonable doubt as to mens rea. Under section 167 CPC the court substituted conviction to dangerous driving causing death under section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 and imposed sentence accordingly.