Pendakwa Raya v ROSMAINI BIN ABDUL RAOF

ja-42h-13-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 November 2025 • JA-42H-13-12/2024 • 91 min read

16 cases cited (0 SG, 16 foreign)

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evaluation of chain of circumstances – Whether circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain conviction – Whether cumulative effect of evidence leads to irresistible conclusion of guilt – Whether alternative hypotheses reasonably possible – Whether chain of circumstances complete and unbroken –Distinction between reasonable doubt and imaginary or speculative doubt EVIDENCE: Witness credibility – Assessment by trial judge – Belated contradictory statements – Whether trial judge erred in finding witness credible – Statutory declaration and police report made after accused called to enter defence – Whether documentary evidence supersedes sworn oral testimony – Weight to be given to trial judge's observation of demeanour – Whether subsequent contradictory documents raise credibility issues –Suspicious timing of contradictory evidence – Whether afterthought or collusion CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Recall of witnesses – Power under Section 425 of Criminal Procedure Code – Whether court erred in refusing to recall witness for cross-examination – Whether recall essential to just decision of case – Exercise of judicial discretion – Whether additional evidence admissible – Whether application made for improper tactical purposes –Whether refusal to recall witness violates right to fair trial under Article 5(1) Federal Constitution EVIDENCE: Hearsay evidence – Whether witness testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay – Distinction between hearsay and direct evidence of facts personally witnessed – Whether admission by accused admissible – Whether evidence of statement made to witness is hearsay or original evidence – Police report as first information report – Whether maker of statement called as witness negates hearsay objection – Failure to raise hearsay objection during trial CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Investigative deficiencies – DNA testing on exhibits – Accuracy of crime scene sketch – Failure to investigate belated reports – Whether investigative deficiencies material – Whether deficiencies create reasonable doubt – Whether investigation thorough and adequate – Standard of investigation required CRIMINAL LAW: Reasonable doubt – Burden and standard of proof at conclusion of defence case – Legal burden on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Evidential burden on accused to raise reasonable doubt – Whether defence narrative raises reasonable doubt even if disbelieved –Distinction between reasonable doubt and mere possible or imaginary doubt – Assessment of alternative hypotheses – Whether third-party involvement theory reasonably possible –Whether failure to put case to witnesses during cross-examination fatal to defence SENTENCING: Grievous hurt to spouse – Domestic violence context – Section 325 read with Section 326A of Penal Code – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Legislative intent behind Section 326A enhancement –Consideration of gravity of offence, circumstances, deterrent effect and public interest – Whether appellate court should interfere with sentence – Consideration of victim impact evidence under Section 183A Criminal Procedure Code – Catastrophic and permanent injuries to victim – Whether sentence reflects seriousness of domestic violence offence – Balancing punishment, deterrence and reformation – Consideration of remand period and statutory maximum

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law

Judges (1)

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad Delivered

Counsel (7)

Kamal Hisham & Assoc. Firm Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Firm Kamal Hisham bin Ja'afar Counsel Accused Mohammad Nor bin Tamrin Counsel Accused Nor Aina Kamilah binti Zalizan Counsel Accused Siti Fatimah binti Mamu Counsel Prosecution Umar Faiz Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Appellant Rosmaini bin Abdul Raof Respondent

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate approach to sentencing for grievous hurt to a spouse under section 325 read with section 326A of the Penal Code, the court dismissing the prosecution's appeal and affirming a ten-year term as neither manifestly inadequate nor disclosing any error in principle.

This High Court decision concerns the prosecution's appeal against sentence in a case of grievous hurt inflicted on a spouse, heard together with the accused's cross-appeal against conviction and sentence. The victim, the accused's wife, was found grievously injured at the couple's residence one morning, having sustained catastrophic brain damage that left her with severe impairment of consciousness and quadriplegia; the prosecution case, resting largely on circumstantial evidence, was that the accused had inflicted those injuries. After a full trial the Sessions Court convicted the accused under section 325 read with section 326A of the Penal Code — the provision enhancing sentences for hurt caused in the context of domestic relationships — and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. This record concerns the prosecution's appeal, which contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offence and the legislative intent behind the enhanced sentencing provisions for domestic violence. The court reaffirmed that appellate intervention in sentence is warranted only where the sentence is manifestly inadequate or excessive or discloses an error in principle. It held that the Sessions Court had properly taken into account the catastrophic consequences of the offence and had imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offending while remaining within the proper range; there was no error in principle, the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, and the threshold for appellate intervention had not been met. The court accordingly dismissed the prosecution's appeal against sentence and affirmed the ten-year term, maintaining the stay of execution on modified conditions with an increased bail sum. It emphasised that the legislative intent behind the enhanced provisions for domestic violence is served by a sentence that squarely reflects the harm done, and that the existence of enhanced sentencing powers does not oblige a court to impose the maximum where the term chosen already answers the gravity of the offending. The judgment illustrates the appellate approach to sentencing for grievous hurt to a spouse under the enhanced domestic-violence provisions.

Why was the prosecution's appeal against sentence dismissed?

The court held that appellate intervention in sentence requires the sentence to be manifestly inadequate or excessive or to disclose an error in principle; here the Sessions Court had taken into account the catastrophic consequences of the offence and imposed a ten-year term reflecting its gravity within the proper range, so there was no error in principle and the threshold for intervention was not met.

Under what provision was the accused sentenced?

The accused was convicted under section 325 read with section 326A of the Penal Code — the provision enhancing the sentence for hurt caused within a domestic relationship — and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, which the court affirmed on the prosecution's appeal while maintaining the stay of execution on modified conditions with an increased bail sum.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Federal Constitution

Art 5(1)

Penal Code (Cap 574)

Cases Cited (16)

UK (1)

[1952] AC 480

MY (15)

[1956] MLJ 220 [1963] 1 MLJ 263 [1969] 2 MLJ 209 [1971] 2 MLJ 16 [1976] 2 MLJ 256 [1981] 1 MLJ 315 [1981] 1 MLJ 84 [1986] 2 MLJ 33 [1993] 2 MLJ 364 [1998] 3 MLJ 14 [1999] 2 MLJ 1 [2005] 2 MLJ 301 [2011] MLJU 655 [2016] 4 MLJ 525 [2020] 12 MLJ 260

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-42h-13-12-2024)