The Court of Appeal did not overturn a rape conviction against a janitor solely based on the vague dates stated in the charge sheet, according to his lawyer Mura Raju.

He told malaysiakini yesterday the vague dates were only one of the four grounds which led the court to release his 45-year-old client, who was accused of raping his teenage daughter.

"Some people said it was bad news. They say that because they don't know the actual background of the case," he added when contacted.

On Monday, the three-member appellate court panel comprising Gopal Sri Ram, Hashim Yusoff and Tengku Baharuddin Shah Tengku Mahmud set aside the janitor's conviction.

(The janitor's identity cannot be revealed in order to protect his daughter).

The next day, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail told The Star that the judgment was "bad news" to rape victims who normally cannot remember the exact dates of the crimes.

A New Straits Times report yesterday quoted him as saying that the AG's Chambers may have to review half of its cases on "whether they have got the exact dates or not".

Women's groups have also expressed concern over the judgment, which they say would require rape survivors to remember the specific date of the crime. This would be difficult especially for children and those severely traumatised by their experience.

Other grounds for acquittal

However, Mura said these were misplaced concerns as vague dates was not the main reason behind his client's acquittal.

According to him, there were three other more important grounds taken into consideration by the appellate court.

"The accused was undefended (at Sessions Court). At the close of the prosecution's case, he was still undefended and they produced three more charges against him. Each charge stated a different year ranging from 1991 to 1996 - a period of five years.

"Section 164 (1) of the CPC (Criminal Procedure Code) states that you cannot have more than three charges in one trial for similar offences exceeding a 12-month period. So this is the first glaring flaw," he explained.

He said the second flaw took place when the court proceeded with the trial after the prosecution amended the charges without giving the accused adequate time to prepare for his case. The trial was wrapped up in two days.

"Having presented the new charges, the court should have asked him whether he is ready to go on, (and) whether he needs a postponement. That again was not done by the trial court," he added.

He said the third flaw was committed when the trial court failed to comply with section 257 of the CPC, which states that an unrepresented accused must have the consequences of the charges explained to him before the trial proceeds.

"The accused must be properly advised, at least by the court, because he was undefended," he added.

'Wake-up call'

Mura, who has been practising for 27 years, said it was unlikely that the court would have allowed his client's appeal based on the vague dates alone.

"The whole trial was a mess. If they had followed the provisions properly as laid down in the CPC, there is a chance that the conviction could have been upheld," he said.

The lawyer said instead of being alarmed by the judgment, the public should welcome and respect it.

"What the Court of Appeal is saying is simply this: We have got a system of justice and guidelines to follow before the court makes a decision," he added.

He also said the judgment served as a reminder to the authorities to conduct their investigations thoroughly.

"It's a wake-up call. It can effectively stop sloppy conduct of investigations from seeping into the administration," he added.

Other avenues

Meanwhile, another lawyer Yusmadi Yusuf urged the AG to take the judgment as a challenge and improve the prosecution and its investigative units.

"At the end of the day, it's not about securing a conviction. It should be about ensuring justice. Therefore, a right charge has to be preferred based on the evidence procured," he said when contacted.

He added that Abdul Gani should not be troubled by the issue of vague dates as it does not prevent the prosecution from effectively prosecuting sexual offenders.

"I don't think a prosecution's case would fail solely because a victim does not remember the exact date of the incident. If it is a strong case, there would be other corroborative evidence to support the victim," he pointed out.

He said there are other additional avenues, such as forensic evidence, which the prosecution can take advantage of in proving its case.

"It's an area that is hardly exploited by the prosecution. Such evidence are very hard to be challenged," he added.

Criminal lawyer M Manoharan noted that the police tend to take medical reports or evidence too lightly.

"The medical report will show specifically the date of incident," he said.

He conceded that there could be times when rape survivors, especially children, who have problems remembering the exact dates of the attacks.

But he said the authorities should refer a juvenile victims to child psychologists or other medical experts who can help them to roughly estimate the time of the incident.

"I am very happy with the decision, which has put finality to all the injustices that took place in the past," he added.