Tiada alasan penghakiman, kes rogol anak tiri diperintah bicara semula

The Muar High Court has ordered the retrial of a man accused of raping his daughter, due to procedural shortcomings preventing the higher court from properly assessing the validity and safety of the death penalty and a 20-year-and-10-month prison sentence. Justice Kalyana Kumar Sockalingam ruled that the man should be heard again by another High Court judge, citing procedural issues that hindered the High Court's ability to determine if the death penalty was valid and safe.

The 42-year-old man was previously convicted under Section 376(3) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 20 years and 10 months in prison for allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter at their home in Simpang Renggam, Kluang, around 7 a.m. on August 8, 2022. He subsequently appealed to the High Court to commute the death penalty and prison term.

Kalyana stated there were no reasons for a retrial as the High Court's judge who convicted him had resigned. Additionally, there were no meaningful oral submissions recorded either at the end of the prosecution case or the defense case. The records only showed a brief summary ruling that the case was prima facie proven and, subsequently, the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

In this appeal, Kalyana emphasized that no reasons for a retrial were provided, as required by Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He noted that the absence of a reason for conviction prevented the High Court from knowing if the witness was truthful, whether the judge reminded themselves of the risk of convicting based on uncorroborated statements, how inconsistencies were resolved, and why the defense was dismissed.

Kalyana attributed this deficiency not to a lack of comprehensive evidence but to the High Court's inability to assess the validity of the death penalty due to procedural deficiencies. This case is unique in that it involved two different High Court judges hearing the trial, with the first judge hearing the prosecution's key witnesses, including the accused and the defendant, while the second judge heard evidence from investigating officers and the defense, before convicting the accused.

The problem was that the second High Court judge never saw or heard the prosecution's witness, who was the main witness in the accused's case. The man was represented by lawyer Mandave Singh Gill, while the defendant was represented by Deputy Public Prosecutor Siti Asmah Zainal Ariffin.