JUDGMENT

Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin J:

Introduction

[1] The Appellant, Logenthiran A/L Chandran, had appealed against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) in Kuala Kangsar who on 21 August 2024 had convicted him on a charge under s 377C of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of re-arrest on 2 January 2024 and ordered to be given 2 strokes of the rotan as well as 2 years' police supervision (after his release) and counselling in prison.

[2] The Appellant had pleaded guilty on the 6th appearance after he was charged in Court . He was represented by a counsel from Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan

"Bahawa kamu pada suatu tarikh di bulan Februari 2020 jam di antara 12.30 tengah malam hingga 2.00 pagi bertempat di Kuil Subramanian, di dalam Daerah Hulu Perak, di dalam Negeri Perak, telah melakukan persetubuhan yang bertentangan dengan aturan tabii dengan memasukkan zakar kamu ke dalam dubur seorang mangsa kanak-kanak lelaki bernama XXXXXXXXXX KPT XXXXXXXXXXXX berumur 15 tahun tanpa kerelaannya. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 377C Kanun Keseksaan."

Note: The victim's name and identity have been withheld to protect his privacy.

[3] The punishment for s 377C of the Penal Code is imprisonment of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years as well as whipping.

[4] This Court heard the appeal on 14 August 2025 and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the SCJ. Dissatisfied with the Court 's decision, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on the same day. The Grounds of Judgment contain my reasons for upholding the conviction and sentence of the SCJ.

The Appeal

[5] Originally, the appellant claimed trial to the sodomy charge. Although he later pleaded guilty at the lower Court , counsel proceeded to attack the conviction as being unsafe on the reason that the appellant was "promised" by the Deputy Public Prosecutor at the Sessions Court that he would be given around 6 to 7 years for the 2 charges that he faced. The Court noted that the appellant was also charged under s 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001. It was also alleged that the YBGK counsel on duty that day was not effective in advising him of his rights. He had told her to plead for no whipping to be imposed because of his "transgender status" whereby he had undergone a surgery in Thailand to insert some silicone in his buttocks to "uplift" their appearance (refer to the appellant's Affidavit filed as per Encl 29). The appellant's counsel also essentially raised these issues during the appeal, seeking this Court 's leniency to send the case to be re-tried before a different Court .

[6] During the appeal, the Court perused the Notes of Proceedings in RRJ2 and grounds of judgment and was satisfied that the SCJ had followed all procedures in convicting the appellant and complied with s 173(b) of the CPC. He understood the charge and pleaded guilty. He understood the consequences of pleading guilty and that he wished to plead guilty unconditionally. The DPP adduced the Facts of the Case (P1) which was read to the appellant and he admitted to the facts. The prosecution tendered other exhibits and all were admitted by the appellant (refer to RRJ3).

[7] The crux of the appeal was that the conviction was unsafe as he was "misled" into pleading guilty. The learned DPP at the High Court objected to the appeal citing s 305 of the CPC which prohibited the Court from allowing the appeal as he had pleaded guilty unconditionally and he understood the consequences of his plea. The appeal may be allowed only as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

Evaluation And Findings Of The Court

[8] This Court is bound by the decision of the superior courts on the issue of whether one can appeal against conviction after pleading guilty. I refer to the recent Court of Appeal case of SAMSUDIN Md Suppian lwn. Pendakwa Raya; [2025] 2 CLJ 919 which discussed the law on this point and