Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Sexual assault

  • 27 Apr 2026

    ABDUL BASIT BADAR BIN MOHAMAD

    Citation
    JA-42JSKS-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-42JSKS-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court upheld the conviction because the trial judge properly assessed and accepted the complainant's detailed and consistent testimony as unusually convincing; the accused's alibi was rightly excluded for failure to give statutory notice; deficiencies in investigation were not fatal given corroborative independent evidence; sentence was varied on appeal under s316(b)(ii) KTJ to increase imprisonment to seven years while retaining three strokes and orders for rehabilitation and police supervision (2 years).

  • 17 Apr 2026

    MUHAMMAD IZZUL FITRI BIN ATAN

    Citation
    BL-62JSK-29-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BL-62JSK-29-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.14(a) AKSTK 2017 because the complainant's testimony contained material inconsistencies with itself and with exhibits/medical reports, there was no reliable corroboration, and on maximum evaluation the evidence was not sufficiently credible to call the accused to answer; therefore the accused was discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

  • 6 Apr 2026

    MIRELFYAN BIN AMIR

    Citation
    BD-62JS-5-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BD-62JS-5-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On full evaluation the prosecution evidence was credible and coherent: victim's consistent testimony, medical findings consistent with penetration, corroborative witness behaviour and discovery of victim's images on accused's phone established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused's bare denial did not raise a reasonable doubt; convicted on S.377CA, S.354 and S.292 and sentenced accordingly.

  • 6 Apr 2026

    MIRELFYAN BIN AMIR

    Citation
    BD-62-40-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BD-62-40-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court found prosecution established all essential elements: credible and consistent complainant testimony corroborated by eyewitnesses, timely reporting, medical evidence of anal fissure and vaginal abrasion consistent with non-consensual penetration, and identification of obscene images on accused's phone; defence denial was uncorroborated and did not raise reasonable doubt; accordingly accused convicted under S.377CA, S.354 and S.292 and sentenced as stated.

  • 4 Dec 2025

    SAFUAN SAFRI BIN SAIFULBAHRI

    Citation
    B-09(H)-273-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    H
    Case number
    B-09(H)-273-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the sentences because the offences were grave, involved sexual offences against minors by a stepfather who betrayed a position of trust, the convictions and sentencing contained no error warranting reduction, and public interest and deterrence required the maintenance of the imposed punishments and ancillary statutory orders.

  • 26 Nov 2025

    MOHAMED NORHASIF BIN NORWIRADIJAYA

    Citation
    WA-42H-9-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42H-9-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Sessions Court erred in law by omitting the mandatory whipping under section 397 for armed robbery and by ordering concurrent sentences for distinct serious offences; appellate court therefore added one whipping to the 7‑year armed robbery term and ordered the 7‑year term to run consecutively with the 10‑year term for sexual offences, yielding a total effective imprisonment of 17 years with seven canning strokes.

  • 26 Nov 2025

    MOHAMED NORHASIF BIN NORWIRADIJAYA

    Citation
    WA-42H-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-42H-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held that the Sessions Court erred by omitting the mandatory whipping under section 397 for armed robbery, added one whipping to the 7-year term for armed robbery, affirmed the 10-year terms and six whipppings for the sexual offences, and directed that the armed robbery sentence run consecutively to the sexual offences sentence, resulting in a total of 17 years' imprisonment and seven whippings; the appellant's appeal was dismissed and the Prosecution's appeal allowed in part.

  • 15 Oct 2025

    Hasrul bin Hassan

    Citation
    BC-62JSK-61-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BC-62JSK-61-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court convicted because the prosecution proved both counts beyond reasonable doubt: the 7-year-old complainant's testimony was credible, detailed and corroborated by parents and investigators (including a contemporaneous complaint, a drawing and demonstration), the defence raised only uncorroborated denial and afterthought alibi and failed to introduce independent evidence to create reasonable doubt, and the relationship of trust under Section 16(1) was established by marriage and birth certificate evidence.

  • 2 Oct 2025

    MOHD NAZIR BIN ZARAAI

    Citation
    KA-62JSK-20-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    KA-62JSK-20-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found the prosecution proved all elements of section 14(a) AKKSTKK 2017 beyond reasonable doubt: the child victim's sworn testimony was credible and unusually convincing and was corroborated by supporting evidence (cousin's account, medical reports). Defence denials and procedural complaints (absence of DNA, vague date, non-compliance with s.28A(2), non-production of certain witnesses) did not create reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly.

  • 2 Oct 2025

    JENKINS RICHARD MAXWELL

    Citation
    BC-62JSK-115-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BC-62JSK-115-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The prosecution proved all essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt by credible and consistent child testimony corroborated by medical evidence and exhibits; the amended charges were properly made without causing prejudice; procedural objections (preliminary inquiry, deposition requirement, absence of interpreter) did not cause miscarriage of justice; the accused's denial and late defenses (coaching, threats, erectile dysfunction) were uncorroborated and thus insufficient to create reasonable doubt, warranting conviction.