Zolkapli Bin Long @ Mohamad v Pendakwa Raya

Appellant(s): Zolkapli Bin Long @ Mohamad

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan

• The appellant was charged under Section 354 of the Penal Code for using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a victim at her workplace in 2011.
• The Magistrate initially acquitted the appellant at the close of the prosecution's case, but this was reversed by the first High Court judge; following the defense stage, the Magistrate again acquitted the appellant, citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and a lack of immediate distress.
• The prosecution appealed the second acquittal to the High Court, where the second High Court judge overturned the decision, convicted the appellant, and imposed an 18-month prison sentence, leading to the present appeal.

• Whether the first High Court judge’s failure to provide written grounds or a certificate under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code when reversing an acquittal and ordering the defense to be called constitutes a procedural error that prejudices the right to a fair trial.
• Whether the High Court is entitled to interfere with a trial judge’s findings on witness credibility and the "audio-visual advantage" when the trial judge’s appreciation of evidence is deemed insufficient or plainly wrong.
• Whether the Magistrate erred in law by admitting a self-printed office sketch in contravention of Section 90A(7) of the Evidence Act 1950 and by failing to correctly apply the "earliest reasonable opportunity" rule regarding the victim's complaint.

• The Court held that there is no statutory or mandatory requirement for a High Court judge to provide a full, reasoned judgment at the interlocutory stage of ordering a defense to be called, as the decision itself serves as a judicial determination that a *prima facie* case exists.
• The Court affirmed that appellate intervention was justified because the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the evidence, specifically by misapplying Section 90A(7) of the Evidence Act regarding inadmissible computer-produced documents and ignoring the corroborative weight of the victim's prompt reporting.
• The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that minor discrepancies in the victim's testimony did not destroy her overall credibility and that the absence of a Section 319 certificate did not occasion a failure of justice.