The former deputy premier was initially expected to be charged under section 377C which reads "committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature without consent”.Deputy public prosecutor Hanafiah Zakaria however told the media that the interpretation of section 377B is open on whether the offence was done with or without consent as the provision is silent on the word ‘consent'.
Although Saiful appeared to be equally culpable under the law, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said he would not be charged because he had lodged the complaint.
"You have to make a choice. Do we charge the person who lodged a police report claiming that the act had taken place?" he said, according to the state Bernama news agency. "
This is our query on the DPP's and Syed Hamid Albar's statements which we hope some criminal lawyers out there may enlighten the public: A complaint of sexual assault and rape means the sodomy is done without consent. In which case shouldn't it be natural that Section 377C be used instead as it states carnal intercourse without consent? Especially as Saiful had complained of sexual assault? Why then use Section 377B, where the key word is "voluntarily"? Does this not mean the sodomy is done voluntarily, in other words with consent? Is this not the natural construction of the words in Section 377B? How do the DPP and the Home Minister explain the charge under Section 377B? Could it be, (shock horror) that the Hospital Pusrawi medical report, which found no signs of assault or sodomy, have precluded the use of Section 377C?
"Seek justice, by seeking to expose the truth" ...mca74justice
No comments:
Post a Comment