Court of Appeal Upholds 14-Year Prison Sentence for Man Who Sexually Assaulted His Young Son

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 21 : The Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction and sentence of an insurance agent who sexually assaulted his nine-year-old son, ordering him to immediately begin serving a 14-year jail term along with three strokes of the cane.

A three-member bench chaired by Justice Datuk Azman Abdullah dismissed the man’s final appeal on Wednesday, affirming earlier rulings by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. The court found no merit in the appellant’s arguments and ruled that the evidence against him was overwhelming.

Justice Azman said the victim had no conceivable reason to fabricate allegations against his own father, adding that the child’s testimony was clear, consistent and credible. He stressed that the sentence imposed was not only punitive but also served as a warning to society against sexual crimes involving children.

The accused, now 43, was ordered to be taken into custody immediately. He had previously been released on bail of RM15,000 with one surety after obtaining a stay of execution pending the outcome of his appeal.

Also sitting on the panel were Justices Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid.

According to court records, the offence occurred at the family’s home in Banting, Selangor, at around noon on June 18, 2021, involving the man’s eldest son.

The Sessions Court convicted him on July 2, 2024, sentencing him to 12 years’ imprisonment and one stroke of the cane. He was also handed an additional two years’ jail and two strokes of the cane under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively.

In addition to the custodial sentence, the court ordered the man to undergo counselling while in prison and to be placed under police supervision for two years upon his release.

His first appeal was dismissed by the High Court on May 19 last year, prompting the final appeal to the Court of Appeal.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, defence counsel Khairul Naim Rafidi argued that his client had been denied a fair trial, claiming the Sessions Court judge had excessively intervened in the proceedings beyond the scope permitted under Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1960.

However, Deputy Public Prosecutor P. Sarulatha countered that the trial was conducted fairly and that the victim’s testimony was supported by strong and reliable evidence, clearly establishing the offence.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution, concluding that the conviction was safe and the sentence appropriate given the gravity of the crime.