YONG CHOO KIONG v Pendakwa Raya

05l-30-03-2024a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 30 September 2025 • 05(L)-30-03/2024(A) • 52 min read

47 cases cited (1 SG, 46 foreign)

Catchwords

The offence of rape under section 376(1) of the Penal Code. The invocation of the procedures under section 265A (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Whether the provisions of section 265A (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code are unconstitutional. Whether the denial of the appellant’s right to be heard at the inquiry stage as provided under section 265A (2) and (3) of the CPC constitutes a direct violation of the principles of natural justice entrenched under Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution (FC). Whether the failure to consider the appellant’s section 112 statement was consider as a non-compliance of section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Corroborative evidence is not restricted to oral evidence of an independent witness only. Circumstantial evidence can also amount to corroboration if the circumstantial evidence is credible and supports the evidence of another witness.

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Hanipah binti Farikullah Coram Nordin bin Hassan Delivered Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Coram

Counsel (13)

Attorney General's Chambers Firm Hisyam Teh Firm Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu Firm Salim Bashir, Ruswiza & Co. Firm Dato' Rajpal Singh a/l Mukhtiar Singh Counsel Appellant Datuk Hisyam Abdullah @ Teh Poh Teik Counsel Appellant Ee Gen You Counsel Appellant Kee Wei Lon Counsel Appellant Low Wei Loke Counsel Appellant Mohd Amril Johari Counsel Respondent Salim Bashir Bhaskaran Counsel Appellant Siti Summaiyah Ahmad Jaafar Counsel Appellant Tiew Poh Nee Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Yong Choo Kiong Appellant

Case Significance

YONG CHOO KIONG v Pendakwa Raya is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated September 30, 2025 (citation: 05l-30-03-2024a). <p>Yong Choo Kiong appealed his rape conviction under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, challenging the constitutionality of the inquiry procedures under section 265A(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the trial court's assessment of corroborative evidence. The Federal Court held that the CPC provisions are constitutional and do not violate natural justice principles, and that circumstantial evidence can constitute valid corroboration. The appeal was unanimously dismissed and the conv The panel comprised Hanipah binti Farikullah, Nordin bin Hassan and Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh, with Nordin bin Hassan delivering the judgment.

Key issues: The offence of rape under section 376(1) of the Penal Code..

Summary

Yong Choo Kiong appealed his rape conviction under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, challenging the constitutionality of the inquiry procedures under section 265A(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the trial court's assessment of corroborative evidence. The Federal Court held that the CPC provisions are constitutional and do not violate natural justice principles, and that circumstantial evidence can constitute valid corroboration. The appeal was unanimously dismissed and the conviction was affirmed.

What was the outcome of YONG CHOO KIONG v Pendakwa Raya?

<p>Yong Choo Kiong appealed his rape conviction under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, challenging the constitutionality of the inquiry procedures un...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code

s 122(6)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

s 265A

Evidence Act 1950

s 60

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

s 157 s 32(1) s 60

Federal Constitution

Art 5(1) Art 8(1)

Immigration Act 1959

s 59

Indian Evidence Act

s 33

Penal Code (Cap 574)

s 376(1)

Cases Cited (47)

SLR (1)

[1996] 3 SLR(R) 444

UK (4)

[1952] AC 480 [1964] 2 All ER 881 [1972] 1 AC 378 [1973] 1 All ER 440

MY (42)

[1935] MLJ 277 [1956] 1 MLJ 220 [1963] 2 MLJ 82 [1964] MLJ 254 [1964] MLJ 300 [1966] MLJ 64 [1970] 2 MLJ 143 [1972] 1 MLJ 122 [1972] 2 MLJ 190 [1973] 2 MLJ 200 [1975] 1 MLJ 119 [1976] 2 MLJ 116 [1977] 1 MLJ 133 [1977] 2 MLJ 155 [1977] 2 MLJ 187 [1978] 1 MLJ 134 [1981] 1 MLJ 144 [1981] 1 MLJ 84 [1981] CLJ 39 [1988] 2 MLJ 252 [1989] 1 MLJ 404 [1990] 1 MLJ 225 [1993] 2 MLJ 70 [1994] 1 MLJ 566 [1996] 3 MLJ 560 [2000] 2 MLJ 577 [2001] 3 MLJ 372 [2002] 4 CLJ 105 [2002] 5 CLJ 156 [2006] 1 CLJ 457 [2007] 5 CLJ 1 [2009] 2 CLJ 603 [2009] 2 MLJ 613 [2009] 3 CLJ 109 [2010] 3 CLJ 779 [2013] 4 MLJ 596 [2014] 4 CLJ 133 [2019] 5 CLJ 479 [2020] 8 CLJ 147 [2021] 1 CLJ 631 [2022] 4 MLJ 111 [2025] 6 CLJ 343