Gopal Sri Ram JCA: The appellant in this case was first produced before the Sessions Court at Temerloh on 26 January 1997 and charged as follows:

That you in early December, 1996, at about 8.30 p.m., in the oil palm estate, Jalan Highway Mentakab - Temerloh District of Temerloh, Pahang did rape a girl named SURIAMIZAN BINTI AZAHAN KPT:810114-06-5246, aged 15 years. You have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376 of the Penal Code.

The appellant claimed trial to the charge and the court fixed 8 January 1998 for hearing. However, when the case was called on for trial on that date, the appellant applied for legal aid. The record shows that the matter was then postponed to 24 June 1998. On the appointed day the appellant who was present applied for an adjournment as his counsel who was apparently supposed to come from Raub had not arrived. The court refused the adjournment and proceeded with the trial. The accused did not therefore have the benefit of representation by a lawyer. In this context we pause to observe two matters. First, the appellant had been in police custody from the date of his arrest and in judicial custody from the date of his first production in court. Second, from the appellant's submission at the close of the prosecution case it appears that he was seen in prison by one Mr. Phillip Loh, counsel assigned by the Legal Aid Bureau. The significance of these matters will appear later in this judgment. The principal witness for the prosecution (PW2) was the appellant's daughter, a 15 year old child. She gave evidence in chief of the incident that formed the subject matter of the charge. We must pause at this juncture to say that the notes of evidence have been poorly recorded. We have therefore encountered considerable difficulty in discerning portions of the evidence, particularly the cross-examination of PW2 by the appellant. However, it appears that in the course of her evidence in chief, the officer prosecuting the case must have asked her whether there had been previous incidents of sexual intercourse because we see from the record PW2 saying that there had been other incidents. She then referred to an incident in her grandmother's house in or about 1995, and other earlier incidents going back to 1991. This method of adducing evidence is most unsatisfactory. It reflects poorly upon the way in which the case was handled in its pre-trial stages. It points to the original complaint by PW2 not having been thoroughly investigated by the police. Alternatively, the Deputy Public Prosecutor entrusted with giving directions in the matter had completely overlooked the reference to other incidents in PW2's statement recorded under s. 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the Code"). Were it otherwise, we are quite certain that the prosecution would have framed a charge in respect of each of the alleged incidents of rape. But the impression - and it is an adverse impression - that has been created by the way in which the trial proceeded is that the case was being investigated into for the very first time in the course of the hearing. We cannot deprecate in terms too strong the unsatisfactory and amateurish way in which this case was handled by both the investigating agency and those in conduct of the prosecution. To return to the narrative, at the conclusion of the prosecution's case, in consequence of the matters arising from PW2's evidence, four charges were framed against the appellant. This included the original charge marked as exh. P11 which had been amended as to the time of the alleged incident. The four charges (marked from P11 through P14) are as follows:

The First Amended Charge (P11) That you in early December, 1996, at about 2.30 p.m., in the oil palm estate, Jalan Highway Mentakab - Temerloh, in the District of Temerloh, Pahang did rape a girl named SURIAMIZAN BINTI AZAHAN KPT:810114065246, age 15 years. You have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376 of the Penal Code