RAMLI BIN MAT v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Confirms that a conviction for a sexual offence against a child can be sustained on the credible evidence of the complainant, and that the absence of DNA evidence is not necessarily fatal where the remaining evidence is believed.

This High Court decision at Kangar concerns an appeal against both conviction and sentence following a Sessions Court trial. The appellant had been convicted under seksyen 376(2)(e) Kanun Keseksaan (section 376(2)(e) of the Penal Code) of raping a child aged eight, and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction together with four strokes of the cane. The appeal challenged the safety of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The prosecution case rested principally on the evidence of the child complainant, supported by her mother, who had discovered blood on the child's clothing the day after the incident and prompted the child to relate what had happened, leading to a police report. The grounds of appeal raised whether the complainant's evidence was cogent, whether the absence of DNA evidence undermined the prosecution case, and whether the complainant's presence at the scene had been established. On the first, the court accepted that the conviction could rest on the complainant's own credible and consistent account, the trial judge having had the advantage of assessing her as a witness. On the DNA point, the court held that the absence of DNA evidence was not fatal where the other evidence was believed, the incident having been reported and the clothing preserved only after some delay. The court was satisfied that the complainant's presence at the relevant house and the essential facts had been proved.

Finding no misdirection in law by the Sessions Court and concluding that the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment and four strokes was setimpal, berpatutan serta adil (commensurate, appropriate and just), the court held there was no basis to intervene. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed and the Sessions Court's conviction and sentence affirmed. The judgment illustrates that a conviction for a sexual offence against a child may be sustained on a credible complainant's evidence notwithstanding the absence of DNA.