KN Segara J:

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") faced two amended charges punishable under s. 376 of the Penal Code for the offence of statutory rape of a girl named Suraya bt. Hamzah, aged 14 years and 4 months. The offence in the first amended charge was alleged to have been committed on 15 August 1997 between 8pm and 12.05am and the offence in the second amended charge was alleged to have been committed on 17

August 1997 between 8pm and 12 mid-night. Both offences were alleged to have been committed at the same place, namely, 5 Lorong Watt Siam, that is, at the house where the accused was then living. The accused was found guilty and convicted on both the amended charges, to which he had claimed trial, by the learned Sessions Court judge, Alor Setar. The accused was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and three strokes of the rotan on each of the charges. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently. The accused was, however, released on bail by the Sessions Court, pending his appeal to the High Court. The accused is a government servant working with the Pejabat Bomba.

The alleged victim (SP3) had left her house in Pendang on 15 August 1997 for Alor Setar without her father's knowledge and when her father (SP1) could not find her that day, he had lodged a police report. However, this report was never produced in Court. In Alor Setar, the alleged victim stayed at the house of the accused from 15 August 1997 till 19 August 1997. When she returned home on the evening of 19 August 1997, she was questioned by her father and thereafter, a police report was lodged by her on 20 August 1997 at about 11.20am to the effect that she had been forced into a car by an unknown person, taken to a house, imprisoned there from 15 August 1997 till 19 August 1997 and during the said period was raped by the same unknown person. This report was also not produced by the prosecution but was instead produced by the defence, as exh. D6 (see pp. 44 and 156, Record of Appeal). It is significant to observe that her evidence in Court contradicted this report (exh. D6) very materially for there was never a word by her that she had been forced into a car by an unknown person, until she was confronted by the defence with the report, exh. D6. Her testimony (before she was confronted with exh. D6) was that she had gone to the accused's house by taking a taxi from the bus station in Alor Setar, after her arrival from Pendang. Her credibility is very much suspect - in fact, her testimony was that she had been raped several times by the accused from 15 August 1997 - 19 August 1997.

Was exh. D6 the product of a fertile imagination manifesting the fury of a woman scorned or was she driven to make the report in order to escape from the wrath and displeasure of her father for having left the house without his permission and stayed away, thereafter, for four days? Was the accused the victim of circumstances manipulated by the alleged victim? The manner in which she got herself introduced and befriended the accused prior to the alleged incident and her subsequent visit and entry into the accused's house, unannounced, in the early hours of 6 February 1998, that is, at 4.15am, to wake him up from his sleep by knocking on his room door, speaks volumes about the character of the alleged victim. This visit by her took place after the accused had already been charged in court for the alleged rape. It is corroborated by the accused's police report made on 6 February 1998 at 3.10pm (see exh. D10). The alleged victim's father's testimony in cross-examination:

Suraya sekarang berada di Cheras Kuala Lumpur, Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak. Kerajaan hantar anak saya.

Mahkamah Syariah hantar pada Pusat Pemulihan. (page 33, Record of Appeal)

is illuminating and leaves many questions unanswered about the character of the alleged victim, including her capability and shrewdness to achieve her desired ends.

Seventeen (17) grounds of appeal