The issue is whether Oren has any grounds to appeal against his conviction.

According to section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), where an

accused has pleaded guilty, he can only appeal against his sentence and not his conviction
except on the ground of legality of the sentence. Moreover, section 306 of the CPC
provides that where an accused has been acquitted, an appeal against his acquittal can only
be made with a written sanction by the Public Prosecutor.

Notwithstanding that, section 307(1) of the CPC highlighted that where a person is
dissatisfied with any judgement, sentence or order pronounced (error in law, error in fact,
severity of sentence or inadequacy of sentence), he may appeal to the High Court by filing a
notice of appeal within 14 days from the judgement, sentence or order. Where a person who
wishes to appeal has failed to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed 14 days, he must
first apply to enlarge the period (extension of time) under section 310 of the CPC in order to
file the notice of appeal. Once an extension is granted, he must then proceed to filing a
notice of appeal under section 307(1) of the CPC.

From the facts, the first ground for appeal that can be used is that Astro has wrongly
applied the standard of proof in convicting Oren. Section 173(m)(i) of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CPC) states that at the end of a trial, the court has a duty to consider all
evidence adduced and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt or not in which the court firmly believes in the guilt of the accused person.
If the prosecution succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, then according
to section 173(m)(ii) of the CPC, the court may convict the accused but if the prosecution
failed to do so, the accused must be acquitted according to section 173(m)(iii) of the CPC.
The test has been laid down in the case of Mat v PP [1963] MLJ 263 in which if a magistrate
accepts the explanation given by or on behalf of the accused, the law is that the accused
must be acquitted. In other words, if the magistrate finds that the accused has not
established his innocence, the accused will still be entitled to an acquittal provided that there
is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

By looking at the facts, Astro believes that Oren has not established his innocence, it
will be wrongful for Astro to convict Oren because Astro did not believe the defence put
forward by Oren. Thus, Astro has wrongly applied the standard of proof and he should have
not proceeded with convicting Oren to fifteen years of imprisonment. By applying the case of
Mat v PP, what Astro should do is to further inquire into Oren’s defence.

With reference to the case of Arulpragasan a/l Sandaraju v PP [1997] 1 MLJ 1, if

Astro is still in doubt when all the evidence has been presented, then the prosecution has
failed to satisfy the onus of proof against Oren and Oren shall be entitled to an acquittal
provided that there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Based on the case of PP v Ling Tee
Huah [1982] 2 MLJ 324, Oren’s mere denial without other proof to reasonably dislodge
the prosecution’s evidence will not be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt against the
prosecution.

The second ground is that Astro as a Magistrate did not give any ground of
judgement as to why he does not believe the defence of Oren. According to Section 307(3)
of the CPC, Astro needs to provide the grounds of his decision in convicting
Oren. As stated in the case of Mohamed Din v PP [1985] 2 MLJ 251, Astro needs to
prove that he has considered the defence of Oren in its totality and proceed to give reasons
for not accepting the defence. In the absence of such grounds, it would be wrong for Astro
to straightaway convict Oren to fifteen years of imprisonment for the offence of rape of
Amoi.

In conclusion, Oren can appeal against his conviction as Astro failed to consider
other evidence and inquire further into Oren’s explanation in accordance with Section
173(m) of the CPC. Astro has also failed to provide his grounds of judgement for rejecting
Oren’s defence. By not doing so, Astro has erred in law, hence Oren has the right to appeal
against his conviction.

- Sec 425 cpc

- Repair case
- Add colour