Jenkins Richard Maxwell (BC-62JSK-115-08/2022)

The accused was charged and convicted for the offences under section 14(a) and read together with section 16 of the of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act (SOACA) and section 376 (3) of the Penal Code.

The accused, Jenkins Richard Maxwell appealed against his convictions by the Sessions Court in Ampang and the sentences imposed are as follows: Case No: BC-62JSK-114-08/2022 • Charge 1 (Amended charge): 6 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest 28/11/2025 09:54:26 Kand. 54 • Charge 2 (Amended charge): 10 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of the cane. • Charge 3 (Amended charge): 10 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest and 10 strokes of the cane. The imprisonment terms are to run concurrently Case no: BC-62JSK-115-08/2022 • Charge 1 (Amended charge): 6 years’ imprisonment Imprisonment to run consecutively after Case No. 114. In addition:

The accused is ordered to undergo counselling pursuant to section 26 of the SOACA for the duration of imprisonment.

The accused shall be placed under police supervision for a period of two (2) years upon completion of the term of imprisonment, in accordance with section 27 of SOACA.

The charges against the accused are as follows: BC-62JSK-114-08/2022 First amended charge: Bahawa kamu pada bulan september 2021 bertempat di rumah beralamat TA-04-03, Pangsapuri Kristal, Changkat Bukit Indah 2, Taman Bukit Indah, Ampang, Dalam Daerah Hulu Langat, dalam Negeri Selangor, sebagai seorang yang mempunyai hubungan amanah iaitu ayah angkat kepada seorang kanak-kanak bernama XXXXXXX (no. K/p: 120131-XX-XXXX) berumur 9 tahun semasa kejadian telah memasukkan jari dalam kemaluan mangsa bagi tujuan seksual. Oleh itu, kamu telah 3 melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 16(1) akta yang sama. Second amended charge: Bahawa kamu pada bulan april 2021 bertempat di rumah beralamat TA-04-03, Pangsapuri Kristal, Changkat Bukit Indah 2, Taman Bukit Indah, Ampang, Dalam Daerah Hulu Langat, Dalam Negeri Selangor, telah merogol seorang kanak-kanak bernama XXXXX (no. K/p: XXXXX-XX-XXX4) berumur 9 tahun semasa kejadian yang mana perhubungan kamu dengannya adalah tidak dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang dan kebiasaan yang terpakai kepada kamu untuk berkahwin dengannya. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 376(3) Kanun Keseksaan. Third amended charge: Bahawa kamu pada bulan september 2021 bertempat di rumah beralamat TA-04-03, Pangsapuri Kristal, Changkat Bukit Indah 2, Taman Bukit Indah, Ampang, Dalam Daerah Hulu Langat, dalam Negeri Selangor, telah merogol seorang kanak-kanak bernama XXXX (no. K/p: XXXX-XX-XXX4) berumur 9 tahun semasa kejadian yang mana perhubungan kamu dengannya adalah tidak dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang dan kebiasaan yang terpakai kepada kamu untuk berkahwin dengannya. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 376(3) kanun keseksaan. Amended charge: Bahawa kamu pada bulan september 2021 bertempat di ruang tamu rumah beralamat Ta-04-03, Pangsapuri Kristal, Changkat Bukit Indah 2, Taman Bukit Indah, Ampang, Dalam Daerah Hulu Langat, dalam Negeri Selangor, sebagai seorang yang mempunyai hubungan amanah iaitu ayah angkat kepada seorang kanak-kanak bernama XXXX (no. K/p: XXX-XX-XXX8) berumur 7 tahun 10 bulan semasa kejadian telah memasukkan jari dalam kemaluan mangsa bagi tujuan seksual. Oleh itu, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 16(1) akta yang sama.

The accused has pleaded not guilty to all the amended charges, and the prosecution has called 8 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused, namely: 1) SP1 Kpl Hamidi - Jurufoto 2) SP2 Noorhajatul Syimma bt Hashim - Ibu mangsa 3) SP3 Mangsa 1 4) SP4 Kpl Azfar Jurufoto 5) SP5 Dr Davina Gill Doktor 6) SP6 Mangsa 2 7) SP7 Dr Nor Syahirah Doktor 8) SP8 Insp Siti Zaleha Pegawai Penyiasat 3.

Through the prosecution's case, the following documents were marked as exhibits: P1 Sampul CD P1A 1 CD P2 Sijil perakuan Seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 P3 (1-18) 18 keping gambar tempat kejadian P4 1 salinan kad pengenalan mangsa 2 P5 1 salinan kad pengenalan mangsa 1 P6 (1-8) 8 keping gambar tempat kejadian P7 1 salinan surat perakuan nikah SP1 dan OKT P8 1 salinan perakuan pengangkatan mangsa 2 P9 1 salinan perakuan pengangkatan mangsa 1 P10 Laporan polis Ampang/19032/21 P11 Laporan polis Ampang/1019509/21 IDD12 (A-H) 8 keping gambar IDD13 (A-H) 8 keping gambar IDD14 1 keping gambar SP2 dan mangsa P15 Sijil perakuan Seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 P16 1 sampul CD P16(a) 1 CD gambar P17 Laporan perubatan (SP5) ID18 Laporan perubatan SP6 ID19 Laporan forensik IDD20 Pemeriksaan awal perubatan mangsa 2 D21 Pemeriksaan awal perubatan O&G P22 Pemeriksaan awal perubatan mangsa 2 IDD23 One Stop Crisis Center Policy Guideline P24 Laporan polis Ampang 19102/21 P25 Laporan polis Ampang/19388/21 P26 Rajah kasar P27 Rajah kasar IDD28 Laporan polis Ampang 19397/21 D29 Salinan passport OKT D30 Salinan bil internet D31 Salinan bil TM D32 Rakaman percakapan OKT bagi no repot 19032/21 D33 Rakaman perckapan OKT bagi no repot 19509/21 D34 Laporan polis Ampang/20215/21 D35 Senarai pemeriksaan IDD36 Laporan Jabatan Kimia

The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are summarise as below:

5.1 The charges involved allegations of sexual assault and rape against two minor victims, SP3 and SP6, reported by their mother, SP2. The victims were adopted by SP2 and her husband, the accused, who has been married to SP2 since 2011.

5.2 SP3 recounted incidents from September 2021, where the accused allegedly molested her while she was lying on the living room sofa. SP3 stated that the accused, whom she called “daddy”, inserted only a little bit of his pinky finger into her vagina. At that time, the accused had pulled down the victim’s pants halfway, and SP3 could feel the accused’s pinky finger because she opened her eyes slightly and felt the finger on her private part. During the incident, SP6, the victim’s older sister, was in “mummy’s” room. According to SP3, the incident happened in the early afternoon and the living room was bright.

5.3 Another incident involving SP6 around September 2021, where SP3 witnessed the accused placing his finger in SP6's genitals. Both incidents occurred when SP2 was at work, leaving the children with the accused.

5.4 SP6 also reported an incident of rape by the accused in their bedroom around April 2021. She recounted feeling the accused's penis during the assault. The incident took place while SP3 was not present, and SP6 later informed SP2 about the blood on her genitals, and SP2 thought it was menstrual blood.

5.5 In addition, SP6 also stated that in September 2021, the accused had also raped her in the same room and on the same bed. The accused pulled down the SP6’s pants and partially pulled down his own pants. The accused held the victim’s hands with both of his hands while inserting his penis into the victim’s vagina. The victim could feel that the penis was long and large in shape. Before the rape incident occurred, SP6 had been drawing on the bed. SP6 did not tell anyone about the incident because the accused had warned that if SP6 told anyone, he would kill her family, which caused the SP6 to feel afraid. SP6 also demonstrated how the incident occurred using an anatomical doll provided to the court.

5.6 Medical examinations confirmed that SP3's hymen was intact, consistent with only finger insertion. However, SP7, a doctor, found old tears in SP6's hymen likely caused by penile penetration. The report indicates that the injuries observed suggest past sexual assault well beyond 72 hours prior to the examinations, excluding the possibility of self-inflicted injuries.

The prosecution submitted that a prima facie case has been proved at the end of the prosecution case. The reasons are:

6.1 The prosecution has fulfilled the elements under section 14(a) and read together with section 16 of the SOACA 2017. The elements are: Any person who, for sexual purposes—

touches any part of the body of a child;

makes a child touch any part of the body of such person or of any other person;

makes a child touch any part of the child's own body; or

does any other acts that involve physical contact with a child without sexual intercourse,

If a person who commits any offence under this Act or any offence specified in the Schedule against a child, is in a relationship of trust with the child, such person shall, in addition to the punishment to which he is liable for such offence, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and shall also be punished with whipping of not less than two strokes.

In this section, a person is said to be in a relationship of trust with a child if the child is under his care, supervision or authority, including but not limited to—

a parent, guardian or person who is related through full-blood or half-blood, or through marriage or adoption, including de facto adoption;

6.2 The elements of offence under section 376(3) has also been fulifilled. The elements are:

there was sexual intercourse between the suspect and the victim, and penetration into the victim's vagina,

(ii) with or without her consent, when she is under 16 years of age and

(iii) a woman whose relationship to him is such that he is not permitted under the law, religion, custom or usage, to marry her.

The defence on the other hand stated that the prosecution has failed to prove a prima case against the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the accused has committed sexual assault towards SP3 and SP6 and rape against SP6.

The defence has also raised objections as follows:

On February 20, 2025, the prosecution submitted amended charges, which the defence has contested by pleading not guilty, claiming significant deviations from the original case. The defence argues that the prosecution's use of amendment power under Section 158 is unlawful and should be reserved for the courts. Additionally, the prosecution's application to recall witnesses for a new trial differs from the previous trial, potentially prejudicing the accused's right to a fair trial by suggesting that the defence is unwilling to call witnesses for rechecking.

This preliminary inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of law. The defence argues that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the prosecution and its findings are flawed and cannot be used or substituted as the absolute findings of this Honourable Court.

The statement of the SP3 should have been recorded as deposition evidence in accordance with Section 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the prosecution proceeded with the main examination immediately after the preliminary inquiry, followed by the trial and then followed by cross-examination and re-examination.

The absence of an English interpreter to translate the proceedings.

This Court has decided that the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case against the accused on the amended charges. Accordingly, the accused is called to enter his defence.

Before setting out the reasons for finding that the prosecution has established a prima facie case, this court will first address the objections raised by the defence both during and at the close of the prosecution’s case.

Amended Charge i) Section 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the court to alter or amend charges at any stage before judgment is given. Amendments can be made during the prosecution stage, provided it does not prejudice the accused’s defense. ii) To allow such amendment courts must ensure that any amendment does not cause injustice to the accused (PP v Abdul Ghani Haroon & Ors [2001] 3 MLJ 561). In this case the amendment has not caused any injustice to the defence because the application for amendment was made pursuant to the overall evidence adduced through the testimonies of witnesses and the exhibits tendered during trial. The victim, in her testimony, clarified that she could only recall that the incidents in question occurred in the months of April and September 2021, but was unable to remember the precise dates on which the offences took place. The prosecution further contended that the proposed amendment would not occasion any prejudice to the accused, as the specific questions posed by the learned defence counsel during cross-examination, together with the answers elicited from the prosecution witnesses, had already directed attention to the same incidents allegedly committed by the accused. iii) In this case the accused has been given the opportunity to defend themselves against the amended charge (Mohd Kassim v PP [2018] MLJU 248). The amended charges were read in English in respect of both cases, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had then offered the defence to recall the witnesses for further cross examination on the amended charge. Nevertheless, the defence counsel then refused to cross examined the witnesses stating that they wished to conclude the case. And thus, the accused has been given the opportunity to respond to the amended charge (PP v Datuk Harun Idris [1977] 1 MLJ 180). And also, on 18/8/2025, during the defence stage, the defence counsel informed the court their decision not to recall SP3 and SP6 as they wished to conclude the case as soon as possible. iv) The amendment to the charges has not alters the nature of the offense significantly, which the court may order a retrial (PP v Lee Tin Bau [1988] 1 MLJ 105).

Preliminary Inquiry i) The defence submitted that the preliminary inquiry in this case ought to have been conducted by the learned judge (first Judge), and not by the prosecution. This case initially proceeded before another trial judge. Upon the judge’s transfer, the matter came before me. However, no prejudice was occasioned to either the prosecution or the defence, as I had the opportunity to peruse the notes of proceedings in respect of the earlier witnesses before continuing with the hearing, including taking the evidence of the victim (SP6) and also the Investigation witnesses. ii) In the present case, the learned Judge made a finding that the victim, SP3, “understood the duty to tell the truth although she did not understand the oath.” The prosecution only asked several questions pertaining to the importance of telling the truth, and the witness replied that she knew it was wrong to lie in court. The said finding was accordingly made by the learned trial judge.

Statement of SP3 should be by a deposition i) Since the first trial judge has made a finding that SP3 “understood the duty to tell the truth although she did not understand the oath” there is no requirement for the statement of SP3 to be made by a deposition. ii)

The Absence of English Interpreter i) The Court took cognisance of the difficulty faced by the accused due to the absence of an English interpreter during the proceedings. The Court accordingly offered to adjourn the matter to another date to ensure the presence of an interpreter. Nevertheless, the learned defence counsel declined the offer and elected to proceed with the trial. ii) Furthermore, the Court had given ample time for defence counsel to brief, consult, and obtain instructions from his client, namely the accused, regarding the proceedings.

Upon due consideration of all the objections raised by the defence this Court finds that none of these objections have occasioned any prejudice to the rights of the accused. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the accused was afforded a fair opportunity to present his defence and that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the objections raised are hereby overruled.

FINDINGS AT THE END OF THE PROSECUTION CASE At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Court is required to subject the evidence to maximum evaluation to determine whether a prima facie case has been established against the accused, thereby necessitating the calling of his defence. (Refer to PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 and Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85). A prima facie case is said to be made out when the prosecution has presented evidence on the essential elements of the charge that is sufficient to secure a conviction if the accused elects to remain silent and the evidence remains unexplained or unrebutted.

The prosecution has proved the elements under section 14(a) read together with section 16 of the SOACA.

13.1 Section 14(a) : touches any part of the body of a child. And the explaination for such act includes: Explanation 1—The act of touching may involve the act of touching with any part of the body or with an object and may be done through anything including anything worn by the person touching or by the child touched. Explanation 2—In determining what constitutes sexual purposes, the court may take into consideration, among others, the part of the body that is touched, the nature and extent of the act of touching or the physical contact and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct.

13.2 In this case, the victim explained how the incident occurred and stated that at the time of the incident, SP3 was lying on the sofa in the living room, and the accused inserted his right-hand little finger into the victim’s vagina. SP3 said that the accused inserted only a small part of his little finger referred to as the “pinky finger” into the victim’s vagina. During that time, the accused had pulled down the victim’s pants halfway, and SP3 could feel the accused’s little finger because SP3 slightly opened her eyes and felt the finger inside the victim’s vagina. In addition, SP6 testified that during the incident in September 2021, which occurred in the TV room, the accused inserted his finger into SP6’s vagina. SP6 said that she saw the accused insert his index finger into the victim’s vagina, and the insertion was not deep. The incident was also witnessed and confirmed by SP3, who was present at the scene. The identity of the accused is not in dispute, as he is the adoptive father of both victims, as confirmed through the adoption certificates marked as Exhibits P8 and P9. Furthermore, the victims and the accused lived in the same house, and this was confirmed by the victims’ mother.

13.3 SP5, the doctor who examined the victim’s hymen, confirmed that no signs of tearing were found and stated that it is probable that the insertion of a finger would not cause hymenal tearing. This finding was supported by the testimony of SP7, who confirmed that, in her 10 years of service as an O&G doctor, she had never encountered a case where hymenal tearing was caused by finger insertion.

13.4 The Court observed that in determining the sexual nature of an act, consideration must be given to the body part involved, the degree of contact, and the surrounding circumstances. In this case, both SP3 and SP6 provided consistent testimonies that the accused inserted his finger into the victims’ private parts. Given that the vagina is a highly intimate and sensitive part of the female anatomy particularly in respect of a child the Court found that the acts in question were clearly sexual in nature.

13.5 Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the essential elements of the charge, namely that the accused had touched the body of the victim for a sexual purpose and that such acts were committed within a relationship of trust, the accused being the adoptive father of the victim.

The prosecution also has proved the elements under section 376 (3) of the Penal Code for the following reasons:

14.1 In this case, SP6 testified that during the incident in April 2021, she felt the accused’s penis being inserted into her vagina, describing it as long and large in shape. The victim also demonstrated the act before the Court using an anatomical doll provided. During the incident, the accused had pulled down SP6’s pants halfway, while his own shorts were also partly removed. The accused was positioned on top of SP6 and held both her hands down.

14.2 During another incident in September 2021, the accused again pulled down both his and the victim’s pants halfway, held the victim’s hands with his own, and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim testified that she could feel the penis, describing it as long and large. The prosecution submitted that, based on the victim’s detailed testimony, the element of penetration was clearly established. This is because the victim confirmed that at the material time, only she and the accused were in the room, and both her hands were being restrained by the accused.

14.3 The Court finds that the medical evidence provided by SP7 corroborates the testimony of SP6. The presence of both partial and complete hymenal tears at different positions was consistent with the victim’s description of penile penetration. SP7’s expert opinion, based on ten years of experience in the O&G department, was that such injuries are more likely to result from penile penetration than from finger insertion, given the difference in size and rigidity.

14.4 The Court further accepts that the accused’s threat to harm the victim’s family instilled fear and prevented immediate disclosure, which supports the credibility of the victim’s delayed reporting. The medical finding that SP6 was not yet pubescent at the time of examination reinforces the conclusion that the injury was not self-inflicted or due to menstruation.

14.5 Both SP3 and SP6 were below sixteen years of age, the question of consent did not arise and the fact that no injury was detected on the private parts of the girl or that she was found to have been used to sexual intercourse also become irrelevant (Harpal Singh AIR 1981 SC 361).

14.6 The Court accepts the evidence of SP2, the adoptive mother, confirming that both victims, SP3 and SP6, were legally adopted by the accused and SP2 on 17 October 2017. The adoption was duly registered with the National Registration Department. At the material time, the victims were minors aged seven and nine respectively, and the accused remained the lawful husband of SP2. Under Malaysian law and custom, such a relationship between an adoptive father and his adopted daughters is one that legally and morally prohibits any form of sexual relationship or marriage. The victims’ young age further reinforces the prohibition and highlights the breach of trust committed by the accused.

14.7 Having considered the evidence in its entirety, the Court is satisfied that all the elements of the offence under Section 376(3) of the Penal Code have been proved:

There was sexual intercourse involving penile penetration;

The victim was under sixteen years of age at the time of the offence; and 3. The relationship between the accused and the victim was one prohibited by law or custom for marriage.

The Court observes that, as a matter of settled law, a conviction in sexual offence cases may be sustained solely on the testimony of the complainant if such evidence is found to be unusually convincing (PP v. Mohammad Malek Ridhuan Che Hassan [2014] 1 MLJ 363). In the present case, the victims’ evidence was not only credible but was also corroborated in material particulars by the testimonies of SP2, the investigating officer SP8, and the medical officer who examined the victim.

Upon maximum evaluation on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case against the accused on the charges against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is called to enter a defence. The accused was given three options: to give sworn testimony from the witness stand, to give an unsworn statement from the dock, or to remain silent.

DEFENCE CASE The accused has elected to give sworn testimony from the witness stand.

The defence elected to call only one witness, namely the accused himself, Jenkins Richard Maxwell (SD1). His evidence may be summarised as follows.

18.1 SD1 testified that he maintained a good relationship with his wife, SP2. He described SP2 as a good wife who was skilled in household matters, including cooking and sewing. He further stated that his income had declined during the Covid-19 pandemic.

18.2 SD1 admitted that he and SP2 had jointly adopted SP3 and SP6 as their children. However, he was unable to recall whether the children attended school in September 2021 during the height of the pandemic.

18.3 It was the position of SD1 that SP3 and SP6 had been coached by SP2, his mother-in-law, and other individuals prior to giving evidence. He asserted that his mother-in-law had never approved of his marriage to SP2.

18.4 SD1 further alleged that SP3 and SP6 had been threatened with being placed in a children's home if they refused to testify against him in court.

18.5 SD1 stated that he had provided a statement to the investigating officer in which he denied all allegations. He maintained that his testimony was consistent with the cautioned statement recorded under section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

18.6 SD1 also stated that he did not observe any behavioural or emotional changes in SP3 and SP6 during the material period.

18.7 SD1 categorically denied committing any of the acts alleged in the charges involving SP3 and SP6. He similarly denied the contents of the police reports (P10, P11, P25) lodged by SP2.

The defence contended that the prosecution did not prove their case against the accused person by not bringing to the attention of the accused to the charges that he had done all the acts. The act of prosecution of raising the issue of erectile dysfunction (ED) was also questionable as to the act of rape when the defence themselves argued that they did not bring up the issue during examination in chief. The accused had under oath then stated during re-examination in chief stated that that he was suffering ED from the date of the commission of the offence.

The prosecution on the other hand contended that the accused’s allegations of coaching and threats involving SP2, the mother-in-law, and another person constitute an afterthought. These matters were never put to SP2, SP3, or SP6 during cross-examination and were raised for the first time only when the defence case began. As such, the prosecution argues that this late-raised defence is unreliable and should not be accepted by the Court.

The prosecution further argued that that SD1’s defence consists solely of unsubstantiated bare denials. His simple disagreement with the prosecution’s suggestions during cross-examination, without any supporting evidence or corroboration, does not amount to a credible defence and is inadequate to raise reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution on the issue of ED stated that the accused’s evidence regarding ED is inconsistent and unreliable. During cross-examination, he acknowledged having some issues but nevertheless admitted that he could still achieve an erection and perform penetration. However, in re-examination, he abruptly shifted his position and claimed to suffer from ED. This contradictory account, unsupported by any medical documentation, reinforces the finding that the claim is a mere afterthought and not a credible defence.

FINDINGS AT THE END OF DEFENCE CASE I accepted the prosecution’s submission that the accused failed to advance any credible or plausible defence. The entirety of the accused’s evidence amounts to nothing more than a bare denial. He offered no explanation, reasonable or otherwise, as to why SP3 and SP6 would falsely implicate him as the perpetrator of the acts complained of.

In the absence of any supporting evidence, independent corroboration, or a coherent reason why the child witnesses would attribute the misconduct to him, the accused’s bare denial carries little probative value. As held in established authorities, a mere denial without substantiating evidence is insufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

On the alleged ED, during cross-examination, the accused admitted that although he experienced some difficulties due to age, his penis was still capable of becoming erect and he was able to perform penetration. However, during re-examination, the accused abruptly changed his position and claimed that he suffered from ED. This shift in testimony, without any supporting medical report or objective evidence, strongly indicates that the claim is a subsequent fabrication. The Court therefore views the accused’s assertion of ED as an afterthought, and incapable of assisting the defence.

CONCLUSION Upon a maximum evaluation of the evidence in its entirety, the Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all essential elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The defence advanced by the accused is found to be unreliable, largely consisting of bare denials and afterthoughts, and is wholly insufficient to raise any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is convicted of the offences as charged.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court has considered the seriousness of the offences, the impact upon the child victims, and the position of trust occupied by the accused at the material time, balanced against the fact that he is a first-time offender.

Where offences arise from a single transaction, whether by reason of close proximity in time, place, continuity of action, purpose, or design the Court should impose concurrent sentences. Conversely, where the offences are separate and distinct, consecutive sentences are appropriate. In this case the offences took place. In addition to the one-transaction rule, the Court is also guided by the totality principle, which requires an assessment of the overall sentences imposed to ensure that they are not excessive or amount to a “crushing sentence.”

Applying these principles to the present case, the offences in both charges involved different victims and occurred on different dates and times, demonstrating that they were separate and distinct offences, not part of a single transaction. Accordingly, the imposition of consecutive sentences is justified. Further, when examined through the lens of the totality principle, the aggregate term of imprisonment does not appear excessive nor does it amount to a “crushing sentence,” having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences and the interests of justice.

Having weighed all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court is satisfied that the sentence imposed is fair, proportionate, and firmly grounded in law. The sentence is neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate. It accords with established sentencing principles and reflects the gravity of the offences committed. PREPARED BY: Nurul Dr Nurulizwan binti Ahmad Zubir Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 3 Mahkamah Sesyen Ampang Selangor Darul Ehsan. 28 NOVEMBER 2025 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: Muhammad Hairuliqram bin Hairuddin Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Mahkamah Sesyen Ampang Selangor Darul Ehsan. DEFENCE COUNSEL: Tetuan Law Practice of K.A. Ramu Unit G082, Ground Floor Millenium Square 98 Jalan 14/1, Seksyen 14 46100 Petaling Jaya Selangor Email: lawpracticeofkaramu@gmail.com