Muhammad Bin Juwahir @ Juhil v Pendakwa Raya

Applicant(s): Muhammad Bin Juwahir@Juhil

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for physical sexual assault under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, a conviction which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court.
• The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and simultaneously filed an application to adduce "additional and/or fresh evidence" in the form of medical reports dated 2025.
• The proposed medical evidence detailed the appellant's health conditions, including stroke, chronic diabetes, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction, which he claimed had affected him since 2014 and were not presented by his previous counsel during the trial.

• Whether the appellant's application to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage met the cumulative conditions stipulated under Section 61 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and the principles established in *Murugayah v. PP*.
• Specifically, whether the proposed medical evidence was genuinely unavailable at the time of trial, relevant to the issues in the case, credible, and capable of raising a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt.
• Whether the appellant's explanation for the late submission of the medical evidence, attributing it to the oversight of previous counsel, constituted a valid reason for its admission.

• The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appellant's application, finding that the appellant failed to cumulatively satisfy all four established conditions for admitting additional evidence.
• The Court held that the medical evidence was not "unavailable" at trial, as the conditions pre-dated the trial, and the appellant's excuse regarding previous counsel's failure was deemed trivial and unacceptable.
• The Court ruled the medical evidence irrelevant to the specific charge of holding the victim's private parts, as erectile dysfunction would not preclude such an act, and thus lacked probative value to affect the conviction.
• The Court further noted that the appeal was against sentence only, not conviction, rendering the proposed evidence concerning guilt immaterial to the scope of the current appeal.