9 Sept 2025
The Court accepted the prosecution's representation to reduce the charge, found that mitigation and public interest justified substituting the death sentences with convictions under section 299 punishable under section 304(a) read with section 34, and imposed concurrent sentences of twelve years' imprisonment from the date of arrest (17 August 2017).
21 Jul 2025
The court exercised its discretion under Act 846 to reduce the mandatory death exposure to a term of imprisonment of 35 years and 12 strokes of whipping, balancing the mitigation from the guilty plea against the brutality of the murder; conviction was affirmed and sentence reduced accordingly.
15 Jul 2025
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Sessions Court had considered relevant factors but the sentence was excessive; the appellant's decision to go to trial could not justify a harsher sentence and the appropriate sentence is six years' imprisonment from date of arrest, one stroke and two years police supervision thereafter.
2 Aug 2024
The High Court upheld the convictions on the second and third charges because the trial judge had properly evaluated credibility and found corroboration and consistency in the complainants' evidence; the accused's denial was a bare denial that did not raise a reasonable doubt under the applicable authorities; however, the original sentence was excessive given mitigating factors (first offender, no physical injury, age, family responsibilities) and was reduced from 7 to 4 years with corporal punishment reduced accordingly.
29 May 2024
The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the 6 years 5 months sentence with the statutory minimum of 5 years because the learned Session Court Judge unjustifiably increased the term by applying section 289 CPC given the appellant's advanced age; the appellant's age and sentencing trends warranted a more lenient sentence balanced against public interest, and the court ordered two years supervision under section 38B DDA.
5 Jul 2022
After weighing mitigation (guilty plea, financial incapacity, family responsibilities, remorse) against aggravating factors (recent conviction for same offence indicating habitual offending and public interest in deterrence), the court concluded a reduced custodial term of 10 months imprisonment effective 5.7.2022 together with three years AADK supervision is fair and proportionate under s.15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and s.38B.
13 Aug 2020
The trial judge erred by failing to consider and state reasons regarding section 293 CPC; given the appellant's youth, first offender status, circumstances of the fight, drinking and foreign national status the Court should exercise its discretion under section 293 and reduce the sentence from 22 years to 6 years imprisonment from date of arrest while upholding the conviction.
20 Feb 2020
The High Court held the magistrate did not commit an appealable error: child witnesses were competent and any irregularity in holding the s.133A inquiry after oath was curable and caused no prejudice; prior incidents were inadmissible and were not considered; delay in investigation did not prejudice the defence given overwhelming evidence; conviction under s.354 PC was safe. However, sentencing was excessive in context and was varied under s.316 CPC to substitute imprisonment with a RM5000 fine based on mitigating factors (age, remorse, apology, financial hardship, rehabilitation) and discret…