The Court of Appeal has overturned the acquittal of health officer Mohd Faris Helmi Ab Rahim, ordering him to enter his defence on unnatural sex charges.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today overturned a High Court decision acquitting a health officer of seven charges of having unnatural sex with a woman and ordered him to enter his defence.
A three-member bench chaired by Datuk Noorin Badaruddin allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the Kota Bharu High Court decision on Dec 10, 2025, which upheld the acquittal of Mohd Faris Helmi Ab Rahim, 38, on all seven charges under Section 377B of the Penal Code.
“The High Court’s order upholding the decision of the Sessions Court is set aside. We find that a prima facie case has been established against the respondent (Mohd Faris Helmi) on the charges under Section 377B of the Penal Code. Therefore, the respondent is ordered to enter his defence.
“The case is remitted to the Sessions Court before another judge to enable the respondent to enter his defence in accordance with the law, and the case management date at the Pasir Mas Sessions Court is fixed for Oct 15, 2026,” said Justice Noorin, who sat with Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz and Datuk Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid.
On April 16, 2024, the Pasir Mas Sessions Court acquitted and discharged Mohd Faris Helmi after finding that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against him. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Kota Bharu High Court.
According to the seven charges, the man was alleged to have intentionally had unnatural sex with a 34-year-old woman, who was the owner of a bakery, in a car in front of a religious secondary school in Pasir Mas and at a petrol station in Salor.
The offences were allegedly committed between 5.30 pm on July 29, 2019 and 1 pm on Sept 18, 2021, under Section 377B of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum jail term of 20 years and whipping upon conviction.
In her grounds of judgment, Justice Noorin said the Sessions Court judge had erred in law by applying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt at the close of the prosecution’s case.
“By treating the question of consent or lack of consent as an element that the prosecution was required to prove under Section 377B, the Sessions Court judge erred in finding that the evidence of the first prosecution witness (the victim) was insufficient at that stage, when the evidence was not intrinsically incapable of belief, and the matters raised against her were matters that should properly be tested through the respondent’s defence.
“We find that the High Court also failed to correct the error and instead upheld the Sessions Court’s decision. Therefore, there are proper grounds for this court to intervene in the decisions of both courts,” she said.
Justice Noorin said the court found that the victim’s evidence was direct evidence concerning the material acts forming the essence of the charges and was not evidence that was intrinsically incapable of belief.
“A witness’s credibility may be challenged, but that does not mean the evidence is intrinsically incapable of belief.
“Whether the witness’s evidence ultimately withstands proper scrutiny at the conclusion of the entire case is a matter that should be decided after the respondent has been given an opportunity to answer the prosecution’s case,” she said.
The proceedings were conducted by Deputy Public Prosecutor Noor Farhana Adham, while lawyer Siti Syaerah Meor Zulkefli ‘Auni represented Mohd Faris Helmi as the respondent.
