ROSMAINI BIN ABDUL RAOF v Pendakwa Raya

ja-42s-7-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 November 2025 • JA-42S-7-12/2024 • 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 Respondent Rosmaini bin Abdul Raof Appellant

Case Significance

Illustrates the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and witness credibility in sustaining a conviction for grievous hurt to a spouse under section 325 read with section 326A of the Penal Code, the court holding the chain of circumstances complete, deferring to the trial judge on demeanour, and upholding the refusal to recall a witness under section 425 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This High Court decision concerns the accused's appeal against his conviction and sentence for inflicting grievous hurt on his wife, heard together with the prosecution's cross-appeal against sentence. The victim, the accused's wife, was found grievously injured at the couple's residence one morning, having suffered 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, while the defence pointed to other possible perpetrators. After a full trial the Sessions Court convicted the accused under section 325 read with section 326A of the Penal Code and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. On appeal, the court addressed the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, the assessment of witness credibility, and a refusal to recall a witness. It reaffirmed that a conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence where the cumulative effect of the proven circumstances forms a complete and unbroken chain leading to the irresistible conclusion of guilt and excluding any reasonable alternative hypothesis, distinguishing a reasonable doubt from a merely imaginary or speculative one. It held that the trial judge, who had the advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanour, had not erred in finding the key witnesses credible, and that a statutory declaration and police report made after the accused was called to enter his defence did not supersede sworn oral testimony but raised questions of suspicious timing and possible afterthought. It held that the refusal to recall a witness under section 425 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a proper exercise of discretion that did not violate the right to a fair trial under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, the recall not being essential to a just decision. Finding the chain of circumstances complete and the conviction safe, the court dismissed the accused's appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the ten-year term, and maintained the stay of execution on modified conditions. The judgment illustrates the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and witness credibility in sustaining a conviction for grievous hurt to a spouse.

Was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction?

Yes. The court held that a conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence where the cumulative effect of the proven circumstances forms a complete and unbroken chain leading to the irresistible conclusion of guilt and excluding any reasonable alternative hypothesis; finding the chain complete and the conviction safe, it dismissed the appeal, distinguishing a reasonable doubt from a merely speculative one.

Did the refusal to recall a witness make the trial unfair?

No. The court held that the refusal to recall a witness under section 425 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, the recall not being essential to a just decision of the case, and that it did not violate the right to a fair trial under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution; belated contradictory documents made after the defence was called did not supersede the sworn oral testimony the trial judge had found credible.

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-42s-7-12-2024)