Attorney General's Chambers

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
  • red color
  • default color
  • green color
  • lilac color
  • turquoise color
English
AGC Portal

Status of Latest Cases & Decisions

Email Print
Jabatan Peguam Negara
 
 
Disediakan oleh : Uma Devi a/p Balasubramaniam
Diluluskan oleh : JAMIL BIN ARIPIN

LAPORAN KEPUTUSAN / PROSIDING BICARA
 
MAHKAMAH TINGGI (III) KOTA KINABALU
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: K42-127-2010
 
ABDUL MALIK BIN MARSAH
 
LWN
 
PENDAKWA RAYA 
 
 
KORUM
 
HAKIM    : Y.A DATO’ ABDUL RAHMAN BIN SEBLI
TPR           : UMA DEVI BALASUBRAMANIAM
PEGUAM : EN HAMID (HAMID & CO)
 
PERTUDUHAN :
a)    83-2344-2009
Charge under section 347 of the Penal Code:
“Bahawa kamu dengan niat bersama pada 18.07.2009 lebih kurang jam 2.30 pagi, bertempat di hadapan Bar Su Club, Waterfront, Kota Kinabalu, di dalam Daerah Kota Kinabalu, di dalam Negeri Sabah, telah mengurung dengan salah Jurina Binti Abdul No. KP: 860226-49-5414 di dalam sebuah Kereta Gen 2 bagi maksud hendak melakukan suatu perbuatan yang menyalahi undang-undang iaitu merogol Jurina Binti Abdul No. KP: 860226-49-5414 dan dengan ini kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 347 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan”.
b)    62-07-2009
1st Charge under section 376(2)(c) of the Penal Code:
‘Bahawa kamu pada 18.07.2009 di antara jam 3.40 pagi hingga 5.15 pagi, bertempat di tepi Pantai Rasa Ria Resort Tuaran, di dalam Daerah Tuaran, di dalam negeri Sabah, telah merogol Jurina Binti Abdul No. KP: 860226-49-5414, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 376(2) (c) Kanun Keseksaan’
 
2nd Charge under section 377C of the Penal Code:
 “Bahawa kamu pada 18.07.2009 di antara jam 3.40 pagi hingga 5.15 pagi, bertempat di tepi Pantai Rasa Ria Resort Tuaran, di dalam Daerah Tuaran, di dalam negeri Sabah, dengan sengaja telah melakukan persetubuhan yang bertentangan dengan aturan tabii iaitu dengan memasukkan zakar kamu ke dalam mulut Jurina Binti Abdul No. KP: 860226-49-5414 tanpa kerelaannya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 377C Kanun Keseksaan”
 
TARIKH KEPUTUSAN :12.4.2012
 
 
KEPUTUSAN :
a)Section 342 & Section 377 C of the Penal Code-appeal dismissed. Sentence affirmed. (S 347 of the Penal code - 2 years imprisonment and RM 1 000.00 fine in default of 3 months imprisonment. Section 377C of the Penal code- 18 years of imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping.)

b) Section 376(2) (c) of the Penal Code-appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside.

*Stay of execution pending appeal to court of appeal refused.

 
ALASAN KEPUTUSAN :
(Bertulis / Tidak Bertulis) (summary)
“ I have gone through the evidence, the grounds of judgment and the arguments of the parties carefully, it is my finding that the learned Sessions Court Judge had not made any error in finding that the appellant guilty of the offences under section 342 and section 377 of the Penal Code. It is clear to me that her findings on these two charges are amply supported by the evidence. As for the sentence I do not find them to be manifestly excessive having regard to the complainant was clearly subjected to humiliation by the appellant and his co-accused. There was complete disregard for her safety and dignity. The appeal against conviction and sentence for these two offences are therefore dismissed.
 
As for the charge under section 376(2)(c) of the Penal Code I am of the view that it is unsafe to allow the conviction to stand. Initially the appellant was only charged with the offence of attempted rape, which means the Public Prosecutor in his wisdom and on the strength of the investigation presented to him by the investigation officer must have decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge the appellant with rape. This fact alone has cast a cloud of doubt on the complainants’ allegation in court that the appellant had also raped her. It is true that the prosecution has a right to amend the charge midway or at any time during the trial but where the complainant’s evidence contradicts the original charge her allegation in court must be treated with the utmost caution.
The fact that only one person raped the complainant is in fact confirmed by the evidence of Alvin Yee Kuan Fatt (PW2) who testified that soon after the incident the complainant told him that only one person raped her. In this regard there is no dispute that another person was tried together with the appellant and was found guilty of raping the complainant. He did not appeal against his conviction. In the circumstances the conviction in respect of rape charge against the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.”
 
 

 



 

Visitor Statistics

mod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_counter
mod_vvisit_counterToday683
mod_vvisit_counterYesterday37958
mod_vvisit_counterThis week114568
mod_vvisit_counterLast week316420
mod_vvisit_counterThis month77258
mod_vvisit_counterLast month1419831
mod_vvisit_counterAll days29134781

Last Updated

Tuesday, 02 September 2014, 15:26 PM

Polls

Please Rate Our Portal
 

Web Mobile

 Portal AGC
Scan QR code for
Mobile access

Other Links

MyGovernment SPKP EPSA
PEMUDAH JKJR Government Transformation Programme
IIM BPH MyIdeas
MSC SPR

MyEG

DBP