Tiada alasan penghakiman, kes rogol anak tiri diperintah bicara semula

The High Court in Muar has ordered that a trial be held again for a male accused of sodomising his daughter, due to procedural shortcomings that prevented the higher court from assessing the validity and safety of the death penalty. (Image file) Petaling Jaya: The Muar High Court directed the male accused to be re-tried before another High Court judge, as procedural irregularities had occurred, preventing it from properly determining whether the death penalty was valid and safe.

According to Berita Harian, the 42-year-old male had previously been charged under Section 376(3) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 20 years and 10 months in prison. The offense involved the alleged sodomy of his daughter in a house in Simpang Renggam, Kluang, around 7am on August 8, 2022. He subsequently filed an appeal with the High Court to have the death sentence and imprisonment commuted.

When granting the appeal, Kalyana stated there was no reason for a trial when the High Court judge who sentenced the male had resigned. Additionally, there were no meaningful oral reasons recorded either at the end of the prosecution's case or the defense case. In this appeal, there was no reason for a trial given, he said, adding that Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the trial court to present reasons for its decision to the appellate court.

Kalyana said the absence of a trial court's reasons prevented the High Court from determining whether the accused's testimony was truthful, whether the judge reminded himself of the risks of sentencing based on uncorroborated statements, how inconsistencies were resolved, and why the defense was dismissed. He said this was not due to a lack of comprehensive evidence, but due to the inability of the High Court to assess the accuracy of the death penalty's fault due to procedural shortcomings.

This was not a case where the prosecution's evidence was so weak as to warrant immediate acquittal, he said. The court also highlighted an unusual aspect, that the trial was heard by two different High Court judges. The first judge heard testimony from key prosecution witnesses, including the accused and the accused, while the second judge heard statements from investigative officers and defense counsel, before sentencing the accused.

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