PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling upholding the acquittal of a health officer on 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 a prosecution 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.
READ MORE: Court orders psychiatric assessment for woman charged with murdering mother
“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 Noorin, who sat with Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz and Datuk Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid on Thursday.
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, Mohd Faris Helmi allegedly had unnatural sex with a 34-year-old woman who owned 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 5.30pm on July 29, 2019, and 1pm on Sept 18, 2021.
Section 377B of the Penal Code carries a maximum prison term of 20 years and whipping.
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 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.”
Noorin said the woman’s testimony was direct evidence concerning the acts at the centre of the charges and was not 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.”
