Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA TAIPING
HENDRA MULANA – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023 AB42JSKS-03-02/2023 AB-42JSKH-1-02/2023 & AB42JSKH-2-02/2023]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for requesting child pornography, emphasizing that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the victim's age, which is a critical element under the relevant legislation (!) (!) .
The appellant was convicted on four charges, with sentences initially set at 13 years imprisonment and 3 strokes of the rotan, to run concurrently. The court upheld the conviction but varied the sentences to 10 years each, maintaining the concurrent term, considering the seriousness of the offences (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution proved the age of the victim through direct evidence, including her birth certificate, and the court found her to be a child at the time of the offences, despite her own statements about her age and attempts to misrepresent it (!) (!) .
The evidence demonstrated that the appellant initiated contact with the victim on social media and subsequently requested sexually explicit images and videos, knowing or having reason to believe she was underage (!) (!) .
The appellant's defense that he believed the victim was an adult was rejected because he did not make any genuine effort to verify her true age, such as meeting her in person or seeking documentary proof. The court held that the appellant's reliance solely on social media profiles and statements was insufficient (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the appellant did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the victim's age, which is a requirement under the relevant legislative provision. His failure to meet or verify her identity was a significant factor in affirming the conviction (!) (!) .
The appellant's credibility was assessed as low, especially given his own admissions and the overwhelming evidence against him, including forensic analysis of electronic devices showing explicit content and communications with the victim (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellant's defense did not raise any reasonable doubt due to his failure to act reasonably to verify the victim's age (!) (!) .
The court also addressed the procedural aspects, including the rejection of applications to admit additional evidence, ruling that the evidence sought was either available at trial or did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence, and thus did not warrant a different outcome (!) (!) .
The appellate court emphasized that the seriousness of the offences warranted significant sentences, but also recognized mitigating factors such as the appellant being a first offender. The reduction of the sentence to 10 years was deemed appropriate (!) (!) .
Overall, the court found that the evidence was overwhelming and that the appellant's defenses were unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeals against conviction and the affirmation of the original sentences (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or clarification on any specific aspect.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Appellant filed two (2) Notices of Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of this Court delivered on 2 November 2023 in respect of Appeal No AB-42JSKS-2-02/2023 and AB-42JSKS-3-02/2023 where the Court upheld the conviction made by the Taiping Sessions Court but varied the sentences of imprisonment. The Applicant had been convicted on 16 February 2023 in Cases No AB-62JSK-20-11/2019 and AB-62JSK-21-11/2019 after he was found guilty and convicted on four (4) amended charges of requesting for child pornography under s 8(b) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 ("the 2017 Act").
[2] The Appellant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment from the date of conviction 16 February 2023 and 3 strokes of the rotan in respect of each charge and all imprisonment sentences were to run concurrently. He was also sentenced to undergo counselling while in prison and 3 years' police supervision after completing the imprisonment sentence. The Respondent had cross-appealed in Appeal No AB-42JSKH-1-02/2023 and AB-42JSKH-2-02/2023 against the sentences of imprisonment and prayed that the terms be served consecutively as the 4 charges were for different offences committed on different dates.
[3] The 4 charges were as follows:
Case No. AB-62JSK-20-11/2-2019:
i. Pertuduhan Pindaan Pertama
Bahawa kamu pada 14 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 0001 hrs sehingga 2150 hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat (deleted) Jalan Kuala Kangsar 34850 Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: (deleted) yang merupakan seorang kanak kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum sebat tidak kurang tiga sebatan.
ii. Pertuduhan Pindaan Kedua
Bahawa kamu pada 15 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 2325 hrs sehingga 2359 hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat (deleted) Jalan Kuala Kangsar 34850 Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: (deleted) yang merupakan seorang kanak kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum sebat tidak kurang tiga sebatan.
iii. Pertuduhan Pindaan Ketiga
Bahawa kamu pada 16 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 0001 hrs sehingga 0106 hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. tefefon: 60177954312) di alamat (deleted) Jalan Kuala Kangsar 34850 Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: (deleted) yang merupakan seorang kanak kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian kamu telah meiakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen dan Akta yang sama.
Hukuman Hukuman Penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih lima belas tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum sebat tidak kurang tiga sebatan.
Case No. AB-62JSK-21-11/2-2019:
i. Pertuduhan Pindaan Keempat
Bahawa kamu pada 17 Oktober 2019 di antara jam 0001 hrs sehingga 0250 hrs melalui media whatsapp (No. telefon: 60177954312) di alamat (deleted) Jalan Kuala Kangsar 34850 Changkat Jering dalam Daerah Larut Matang Negeri Perak telah meminta pornografi kanak-kanak daripada XXXXX, KPT: (deleted) yang merupakan seorang kanak kanak di bawah umur 18 tahun semasa kejadian. Oleh demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 8(b) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
