Court upholds 13 month-jail sentence of former ‘mudir’ convicted of gross indecency

PUTRAJAYA: A former ‘mudir’ (headmaster) of a religious school) in Machang, Kelantan, who is serving a 13-month jail sentence for gross indecency, yesterday failed in his bid to have the sentence waived.

A panel of three Judges of the Court of Appeal led by Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail unanimously dismissed the application by Syamsul Zaman Sukri, 36, who had sought leave to appeal to set aside the conviction and sentence meted down on him by the Kota Bharu

High Court on Nov 21 last year.

“The court found no merit in the applicant’s (Syamsul Zaman) application. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed,” said Hadhariah.

Also on the panel were Judges Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Azmi Ariffin.

The former mudir began serving the 13-month jail sentence on Nov 21 last year, following the Kota Bharu High Court order for him to serve the jail sentence immediately after dismissing his appeal against the conviction and sentence handed down by the Magistrate’s Court on March 9 the same year.

Since the case originated from the Magistrate’s Court, Syamsul Zaman is required to first obtain leave before proceeding with his appeal at the Court of Appeal under Section 50(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Syamsul Zaman, nicknamed ‘Ustaz Budak’, was charged with committing gross indecency against a 30-year-old man, including kissing the victim’s cheek, at a hotel in Kota Bharu at 1.15am on Dec 16, 2020.

He was charged under Section 377D of the Penal Code which provides a maximum prison sentence of two years, upon conviction.

Syamsul Zaman is also facing charges involving more than 10 cases of sexual crimes against several men, including his students, and the cases are still at the trial stage.

Earlier, his lawyer Ahmad ‘Adha ‘Amir Yasser Amri submitted that there was conflicting evidence regarding the time of the incident and the prosecution failed to prove precisely when the gross indecency happened.

“This is because the complainant, who is also a victim, in his police report stated that at 1.15am, he had just arrived at his hotel compound with the applicant (Syamsul Zaman).

“There is also a testimony from a prosecution witness who said that the complainant was not in the hotel room at the time stated in the charge,” he said.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorhisham Mohd Jaafar argued that although there was a discrepancy in the evidence, it was considered by the Magistrate which found that the discrepancy was immaterial.

“The important element, in this case, is sexual behaviour and the identity of the perpetrator. The applicant admitted to being at the scene of the incident but his act of denying what he had done was a mere denial,” he said. — Bernama