Consensual or Non-Consensual - Judge dah pening........

For the first time, a Malaysian court is faced with a contradiction between the charge against an accused, and the main witness' testimony. It has occured in the sodomy trial of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, who has been charged under Section 377 b of the Penal Code with having consensual carnal intercourse with former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

According to Saiful's police report against Anwar, however, which the former made at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital on June 28, 2008, the alleged sodomy incident of June 26 was non-consensual and, hence, should have been under section 377c of the same code. This discrepancy between the charge faced by Anwar and what Saiful had stated in his testimony was brought to the fore today by defence lawyer Karpal Singh.

Karpal, in applying for access to Saiful's statements to the police as recorded by case investigating officer DSP Jude Aloysius Pereira, has also moved to impeach the star witness and alleged victim.

"Clearly, there is a serious discrepancy with the charge with what the witness had maintained with the questions posed earlier," he said.

Therefore, said Karpal, the defence is applying for Saiful's (below) statements that he made under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to see why there is such a discrepancy.

A person found guilty under Section 377b (consensual sodomy) stands to face a maximum jail sentence of 20 years jail and is liable to whipping.

Under section 377c for non-consensual sodomy, a person stands to face a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 20 years and is liable to whipping.

Realising the discrepancy, Kuala Lumpur High Court Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah said he will make a decision known tomorrow whether to allow the defence application to scrutinise Saiful's statement to the police.

"I realise the discrepancy between the charge and what the witness had said," he said.

source:malaysiakini

Saiful dakwa bahawa dia telah diliwat "tanpa kerelaan", sedangkan Anwar didakwa menurut Seksyen 377b atas kesalahan mengadakan hubungan di luar tabii dengan kerelaan. Sepatutnya Anwar didakwa menurut Seksyen 377c iaitu hubungan seks luar tabii secara tak rela.

Jadi bila bila Saiful tegas bahawa hubungan seks luar tabii itu adalah secara tak rela,timbul percanggahan keterangan dalam mahkamah dengan laporan polis yang dibuatnya.

Karpal kata,penyiasatan sepatutnya dijalankan mengikut seksyen 377c. Karpal kemudiannya berkata Saiful menipu dan cuba mencabar keboleh-percayaan atau kewibawaannya sebagai saksi. Kalau liwat secara tanpa kerelaan kenapa Saiful dikatakan menggunakan minyak pelincir? Pikiaq2 mai.....

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah mengaku ini kali pertama perkara seumpama itu timbul - tertuduh didakwa dengan hubungan seks (liwat) secara rela sedangkan bukti yang dikemukakan menunjukkan ia dilakukan tanpa rela.

Kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 377b(dengan rela) ialah 20 tahun penjara dan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 377c(tanpa rela) ialah antara 5-20 tahun penjara.

Jadi tujuan mendakwa Anwar menurut Seksyen 337b adalah dengan niat nak hukum Anwar maksima 20 tahun penjara.

Hakim sepatutnya minta laporan polis(pengakuan Saiful) dikemukakan dalam mahkamah,tapi tak dibuatnya. Awat susah sangatkah pihak pendakwa nak benarkan laporan polis dikemukakan atau mereka(pendakwa) ada niat yang lain?

Kenapa,hakim tangguh perbicaraan keesokkannya? Why? Nak minta nasihat "bos" the next course of action? In the haste they(pendakwa) forgot one simple rule - to ensure that the police report and the charge must be the same.

Kalau di negara lain kes ini lama dah dibuang dalam tong sampah. Pleaselah, not another Mangosteen Paul.......

cheers.