Court upholds jail sentence of ex-religious school head for gross indecency

 

A panel of three Court of Appeal judges today ruled there was no merit in Syamsul Zaman Sukri’s application to overturn his conviction for gross indecency.

PUTRAJAYA: A former religious school mudir (headmaster) from Machang, Kelantan, who is serving a 13-month prison sentence for gross indecency, today failed in his bid to have his sentence overturned, Bernama reported.

A panel of three Court of Appeal judges – chaired by Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail, alongside Justice Azman Abdullah and Justice Azmi Ariffin – unanimously dismissed the application by Syamsul Zaman Sukri, 36, who appealed against his conviction and sentence by the Kota Bharu High Court on Nov 21 last year.

“The court found no merit in the application and therefore the appeal is dismissed,” Hadhariah said.

The former mudir began serving his sentence on Nov 21 last year, with the High Court ordering his sentence to begin immediately after dismissing his appeal against the magistrates’ court ruling on March 9, 2023.

Syamsul, 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 is also facing 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 there was conflicting evidence regarding the time of the incident and the prosecution had failed to prove precisely when the incident occurred.

“This is because the complainant, in his police report, stated that at 1.15am, he had just arrived at his hotel compound with Syamsul.

“There is also 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 Jaafar argued that although there was a discrepancy in the evidence, it was considered by the magistrate, who 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. - FMT