SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1403

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
PP – Appellant
Versus
ASIHAR KAMARUDDIN & OTHER CASES – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: AA-42JSKH-4-08-2024 AA-42JSKH-5-08-2024 AA-42JSKS-3-08-2024 & AA-42JSKS-4-08-2024]



Petitioner Advocates:V Santhiran ,Respondent Advocate: Geetha Jora Singh

The court ruled that an accused is entitled to an acquittal if reasonable doubt is raised, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 - Section 14(a) - Appeal by appellant against conviction for physical sexual assault on a minor - Trial Court misdirected in rejecting appellant's defence based on alleged failure to present during trial - Defence was indeed presented during cross-examination - Prosecution failed to prove complainant's age, raising reasonable doubt - Court emphasizes that the burden remains on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 13, 27, 34)

(B) The trial Judge erroneously evaluated the defence on inherent reasonableness rather than assessing if it raised reasonable doubt on the prosecution case - Earlier precedents establish the judicial duty to consider all defence presented. (Paras 19-25)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of physical sexual assault against his niece, aged 17 years and 10 months at the time, regarding incidents on 8 August 2022. The appellant contended that his actions were misinterpreted, alleging he entered the complainant's room merely to seize her mobile phone.

Findings of Court:
The inadequacies in the prosecution's case regarding the complainant's age and the trial Judge's misdirection substantiate a miscarriage of justice, warranting appellate intervention.

Issues: The core issues included the adequacy of defence presented, the prosecution's burden of proof regarding complainant’s age, and whether the rejection of the defence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the trial Judge's incorrect assertion that the appellant's defence was not put forward led to a misdirection in law, ultimately concluding that the prosecution did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt concerning the complainant being underage.

Result: Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted and discharged.

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and incident details. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding the appeal's basis. (Para 2 , 12 , 13 , 27 , 30)
3. court's observations on the trial's procedural errors. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 22 , 23)
4. ratio decidendi on evaluation of defence credibility. (Para 11 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 26)
5. conclusion and outcome of appeals. (Para 24 , 31 , 32 , 33)
Moses Susayan JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the judgment of this Court on the consolidated criminal appeals filed by the appellant, Asihar bin Kamaruddin, against the conviction and sentence, and appeal by the prosecution on sentence, imposed by the learned Sessions Court Judge in Teluk Intan in Case No AC-62JSK-26-12/2022 and AC-62JSK-27-12/2022. The appellant was convicted under s 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 ("Act 792") for acts of physical sexual assault against his niece, a child aged 17 years and 10 months at the material time.

[2] The crux of the appeal lies in the appellant's assertion that the trial Court had misdirected itself in rejecting his defence on the erroneous basis that the defence was not put during the prosecution stage, despite there being clear evidence that the defence had indeed been put to the prosecution's witnesses, including the complainant (SP3).

The Charges

[3] The preferred charges against the appellants in the Sessions Court were as follows:

"Case AC-62JSK-26-12/2022:

1st Charge

Tarikh: 8 August 2022

Masa: Antara jam 5.00am hingga 5.10am Tempat:

XYZ. Seksyen: 14(a) Akta 792

Cara: Memeluk belakang badan mangsa

Hukuman:

3 tahun penjara dari tarikh sabitan (9 August 2024) dan 1 kali sebatan rotan di bawah s 14(a) Akta 792, OKT perlu menjalani rehabilitative counselling sepanjang pemenjaraan di bawah s 26(1) Akta 792 dan 1 tahun pengawasan polis di bawah s 27(1) Akta 792."

"2nd Charge

Tarikh: 8 August 2022

Masa: Antara jam 5.00am hingga 5.10am Tempat:

XYZ. Seksyen: 14(a) Akta 792

Cara: mencium bibir mangsa Hukuman:

3 tahun penjara dari tarikh sabitan (9 August 2024) dan 1 kali sebatan rotan di bawah s 14(a) Akta 792, OKT perlu menjalani rehabilitative counselling sepanjang pemenjaraan di bawah s 26(1) Akta 792 dan 1 tahun pengawasan polis di bawah s 27(1) Akta 792."

"3rd Charge

Tarikh: 8 August 2022

Masa: Antara jam 5.00am hingga 5.10am Tempat:

XYZ. Seksyen: 14(a) Akta 792

Cara: Memeluk belakang badan mangsa

Hukuman:

The appellant was Discharged Not amounting to acquittal on the application of the prosecution"

"Case AC-62JSK-27-12/2022

1st Charge

Tarikh: 8 August 2022

Masa: Antara jam 5.00am hingga 5.10am Tempat:

XYZ. Seksyen: 14(a) Akta 792

Cara: Meraba pinggul mangsa Hukuman

3 tahun penjara dari tarikh sabitan (9 August 2024) dan 1 kali sebatan rotan di bawah s 14(a) Akta 792, OKT perlu menjalani rehabilitative counselling sepanjang pemenjaraan di bawah s 26(1) Akta 792 dan 1 tahun pengawasan polis di bawah s 27(1) Akta 792."

[4] The charges against the appellant can be summarised as follows:

a) Case AC-62JSK-26-12/2022:

Count 1: Hugging the complainant from behind.

Count 2: Kissing the complainant on the lips

Count 3: Discharged Not amounting to acquittal on the application of the prosecution

b) Case AC-62JSK-27-12/2022:

Count 1: Touching the complainant's buttocks.

[5] Section 14 (a) of Act 792 provides as follows:

"14 Physical sexual assault on a child Any person who, for sexual purposes:

(a) touches any part of the body of a child;

(b)...

(c)...

(d)...,

commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and shall also be liable to whipping.

Explanation 1 — The act of touching may involve the act of touching with any part of the body or with an object and may be done through anything including anything worn by the person touching or by the child touched.

Explanation 2 — In determining what constitutes sexual purposes, the Court may take into consideration, among others, the part of the body that is touched, the nature and extent of the act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top