Hosneara Begum bt Rabesali & Anor v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Muhammad Faruk Bin Syahabudin

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Ahmad Shahrir B. Mohd Salleh

• Two appellants were jointly charged under section 3(1) of the Kidnapping Act 1961 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for kidnapping a Bangladeshi national for ransom of RM30,000, allegedly abducting him from a bus station and confining him at a rented house for five days.
• The prosecution's case rested on the victim's testimony that he was tied up, threatened, had his phone and laptop seized, and that ransom demands were made to his family, corroborated by the taxi driver, the victim's relatives, and the raiding police officer.
• The defence case was that the victim voluntarily went to the second appellant's house, was free to move about (including using an outdoor toilet), and that the "kidnapping" was staged by mutual agreement with the victim himself in order to extract money from his parents for visa/passport renewal; a co-resident witness (SP5) supported this version.
• The High Court convicted both appellants, finding a common intention to abduct, wrongfully confine and extort ransom, rejecting the defence as a bare denial and finding the prosecution witnesses, including SP5, credible.

• Whether a charge under section 3(1) of the Kidnapping Act is defective for failing to specify which particular act of kidnapping (abduction, wrongful restraint, or wrongful confinement) was committed, and whether this causes prejudice to the accused.
• Whether the trial judge properly conducted a maximum evaluation of the evidence at both the end of the prosecution case and the end of the defence case, particularly regarding material contradictions between prosecution witnesses.
• Whether the appellate court should disturb the trial court's findings of fact and credibility assessments where a prosecution witness's evidence materially contradicted and undermined the victim's account.

• The Court held that a charge under section 3(1) of the Kidnapping Act need not specify which particular act (abduction, wrongful restraint or confinement) was committed, as these are merely particulars of the offence and do not mislead the accused, following the Court's own earlier decision overturning the High Court authority relied upon by the appellants.
• On the merits, the Court found that the trial judge had failed to critically evaluate the evidence of a defence-favourable prosecution witness (SP5), which materially contradicted the victim's account on key issues such as freedom of movement, absence of restraint, and the staged nature of the "kidnap" photograph; this amounted to a failure of maximum evaluation and a serious misdirection.
• The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case and that reasonable doubt had been raised, setting aside the convictions and sentences and ordering an acquittal and discharge for both appellants.