MUHAMMAD SALIHIN BIN MOHD FAUZI v Pendakwa Raya [Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)]

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate approach to child sexual-offence convictions: where the trial court has properly weighed the child's evidence under section 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 and the defence has raised no reasonable doubt, the convictions and sentences are upheld, with a position of trust an aggravating factor.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is a criminal appeal against conviction for a series of sexual offences against a child committed by a person in a position of trust. The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court at Kajang, after a full trial, on eight of the nine charges he faced. The charges spanned several statutes: sexual assault of a child under sections 14(a) and 16(1) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, carnal intercourse against the order of nature under section 377C of the Penal Code, using criminal force to outrage modesty under section 354 of the Penal Code, and possessing obscene photographs and publicly exhibiting an obscene video under section 292(a) of the Penal Code. The victim was a child, and the appellant stood in a relationship of trust as her religious-studies (KAFA) teacher, an aggravating feature reflected in the sexual-assault charge.

The court considered the treatment of the child's evidence under section 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 and the approach to corroboration, and reviewed whether the Sessions Court had properly evaluated the defence. It held that the Sessions Court had been correct to assess the unsworn evidence of the appellant and his witnesses and to decline to believe it, and that the defence had not raised any reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case.

The court held that the convictions on all the amended charges, save the fifth, were safe and affirmed them, and maintained the sentences and orders imposed by the Sessions Court. It found no misdirection in the way the trial court had received and weighed the child complainant's account, and no basis to disturb the sentence, given the gravity of the offences and the breach of trust involved. The judgment illustrates the appellate approach to convictions for child sexual offences: where the trial court has properly weighed the child's evidence under the special rules that govern it and the defence has not raised a reasonable doubt, the convictions and sentences will be upheld, with the offender's position of trust an aggravating consideration that tells against any reduction.