The court affirmed that witness credibility is paramount in rape cases, and the absence of reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case justified the conviction under Section 376.

The Appellant was charged for the offence of statutory rape under section 376 of the Penal Code . The charge preferred against the Accused reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada suatu hari di antara 01.05.2003 hingga 31.05.2003, di dalam sebuah bilik, Tingkat 3A Flat guru, Sekolah Pendidikan Khas Tuaran, di dalam daerah Tuaran, di Negeri Sabah, telah merogol seorang perempuan bernama XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX, umur 14 tahun, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 376 Kanun Keseksaan Undang-Undang Malaysia"

At the end of the Prosecution case, the learned Sessions Court Judge found that there is a prima facie case against the Appellant and called the same to enter his defense. At the end of the defense case, the learned Sessions Court Judge found that the evidence did not raise any reasonable doubt and convicted the Appellant who now appeals to this Court against the conviction and sentence.

Background facts;

The victim in this case is PW10 who at that time was aged 14 and also is deaf and dumb. She attended a special school known as Sekolah Rendah Pendidikan Khas, Tuaran from the year 1999 where the accused was teacher there and resided at an apartment in the school compound. Sometime before the midyear school holidays in May 2003 PW10 and two other friends, namely XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX (PW 11) and XXXXXX were summoned by the accused to do some house chores at the accused's apartment. The three girls had individual chores with PW10 sweeping the floor, PW11 washing the dishes and XXXXXX cleaning the house and throwing out the rubbish. The Appellant went into the room where PW 10 was sweeping and closed the door. He then asked PW10 to stop sweeping took off her pants and allegedly raped her. What actually happened in that room is in essence the crux of this appeal.

According to PW10, the Appellant took off her pants, shorts and panty and had sex with her. PW10 tried to push the accused off her but to no avail as the Appellant was too strong. Though PW 10 did not see the accused inserting his penis but she felt pain in her vagina. She was also afraid of the Appellant, hence did not shout. After the alleged rape, the Appellant told PW10 in sign language not to tell anyone. PW10 then put on her pants and went out of the is room.

The Appellant's story was this. He caught PW10 playing with his computer and scold her as he was afraid that the information in the computer may be lost.

Sessions Court Judge grounds:

Having read the evidence and the grounds of the learned Sessions Court Judge, there is no doubt that this is a case where the trial Judge accepted the evidence of the complainant based on a finding of fact. This is evident in this part of the judgment after evaluating the evidence of the prosecution which reads as follows:

"From the testimony of the main witnesses of the prosecutions, I am of the view that the prosecution's case rest heavily on the credibility of PW10 and to some extent on the evidence of PW 11 who lends some corroboration to PW 10's story about being in theaccused flat on the day of the rape. PW11 did not see the rape but was there with PW10 and XXXXXX on the day of the incident.

The medical evidence as well as the evidence of the chemist did not point to the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. The evidence of the doctor only confirms that PW10 had sex before evidenced by the old tear in her hymen. In a rape case the credibility of the complainant is of the utmost importance. See PP v. Nasar Bin Ahmad (1986) 2 MLJ

PW10 is a witness who is deaf but not a total mute. She testified that she can hear just a little if the sound is loud. She can also shout. Her evidence was interpreted to her by Rose Ng Yoke Yang, a trained interpreter who graduated from the University of Tenessee and Anne Laura Benedict, a sign language instructor. PW 10 spoke with her hands a