Back
2018 MarsdenLR 1492
HIGH COURT MALAYA ALOR SETAR
PP – Appellant
Versus
MOHD RODZI AHMAD – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: 42LB(A)-02-10-2016]
Defendants must adhere to notice requirements for alibi evidence, or such evidence may be deemed inadmissible.
Headnote:The appeal is from an acquittal in the Sessions Court concerning charges of rape under s 376(3) of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused based on a defense of alibi, which was later challenged on appeal. Key issues included the admissibility of alibi evidence and its consideration by the trial court. The appellate court found errors in the acquittal and substituted it with a conviction on both charges. The final sentence was 15 years and 10 strokes of whipping.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and findings of the sessions judge. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appeal initiated by prosecution against acquittal. (Para 2) |
| 3. accused denied presence during incidents; defense relied on alibi. (Para 6) |
| 4. legal requirements for the alibi defense. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. importance of alibi evidence notice as per cpc. (Para 11) |
| 6. errors in previous judgment regarding alibi evidentiary rules. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's errors noted regarding alibi witness evidence. (Para 14) |
| 8. final verdict and sentencing. (Para 17) |
[1] This appeal emanates from the Sessions Court at Sungai Petani. It has been filed at the instance of the prosecution.
[2] After hearing the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of the following charges:
PERTUDUHAN PERTAMA
Bahawa kamu pada 24 Februari 2012 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari bertempat di dalam rumah no 1005 Lorong Wahyu 2, Bandar Utama, 08000 Sungai Petani di dalam daerah Kuala Muda di dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman telah merogol seorang perempuan Melayu nama Nur Afifah Azree bt Abdul Mutalib kp:XXXXXX-XX-XXXX yang berumur 14 tahun 5 bulan.
Oleh yang demikian kau telah melakukan suatu kesalahan boleh dihukum di bawah s 376(3) Kanun Keseksaan.
PERTUDUHAN KEDUA
Bahawa kamu pada 14 April 2012 jam lebih kurang 10.30 pagi bertempat di dalm rumah no 1005 Lorong Wahyu 2, Bandar Utama, 08000 Sungai Petani di dalam daerah Kuala Muda di dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman telah merogol seorang perempuan Melayu nama Nur Afifah Azree bt Abdul Mutalib kp:XXXXXX-XX-XXXX yang berumur 14 tahun 5 bulan.
Oleh yang demikian kau telah melakukan suatu kesalahan boleh dihukum di bawah s 376(3) Kanun Keseksaan.
[3] The present appeal is against these orders of acquittal. For ease of reference, I shall refer to the parties as they were in the lower Court.
[4] Briefly the prosecution's case is as follows. At the time of the offence, the accused was married to 3 women. The victim in these alleged rapes, Nur Afifah Azreen bt Abdul Mutalib, is the sister of the 3rd wife. The 3rd wife is known as Norhasyini binti Abdul Mutalib (SP4). The instances of rape took place at the matrimonial home of the accused and SP4.
[5] At the end of the prosecution's case, the learned Sessions Judge made the following findings (at p 22 and 24 of his grounds of judgment):
RUMUSAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN
Saya bersetuju dengan hujahan pendakwaan bahawa dalam membutikan elemen-elemen;
1. The accused had sexual intercourse with the woman in question.;
2. There was penetration.
...
KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN.
Berdasarkan keadaan-keadaan yang telah dinyatakan dan merujuk kepada keseluruhan kes ini secara penilaian maksima (Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP, [2003] 2 MLJ 65) saya berpendapat pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKT bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan. Oleh itu OKT adalah dipanggil untuk membela diri bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan.
In other words, the learned Sessions Judge found as a fact that the accused was positively identified as the person who raped the victim on both those dates.
[6] The accused's defence is one of alibi. He denied that he was at SP4's house on those material dates. He testified on oath that on both occasions he was with his 2nd wife at her (the 2nd wife) house. His 2nd wife identified as one Farihah binti Hassan (SD2) was called as the 2nd defence witness. SD2 corroborated the accused on the fact that the accused was with her on those dates and they were at her house.
[7] After hearing the defence, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the following conclusion (at p 39 of his grounds of judgment):
Merujuk kepada garis panduan di dalam kes Mat v. PP, saya memercayai keterangan OKT dan SD2 dalam kes pembelaan. Oleh itu saya telah melepas dan membebaskan OKT daripada kedua-dua pertuduhan di dalam kes ini.
It is evident from the grounds of judgment that the learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of the accused's alibi witness.
[8] The law relating to a defence of alibi is
