Teacher acquitted of molest charge without defence called

BUTTERWORTH: A teacher walked free after the magistrates’ court here acquitted him of a molest charge involving a former classmate from a teachers’ training institute.

Magistrate Aini Adillah Faizal ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Irfan Fathullah Farizun.

Irfan was accused of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of Siti Nor Zulaika Che Zol, 25, by touching her breast along the Butterworth Outer Ring Road in February 2022, at about 1pm.

The charge was framed under Section 354 of the Penal Code, which carries a jail term of up to 10 years, a fine, whipping, or any two of the punishments, upon conviction.

Deputy public prosecutor Lim Zhan Yii prosecuted, while S Sagthiyaraj appeared for Irfan.

Sagthiyaraj told FMT that the magistrate also found that the delay in lodging the police report and the contradictions in the complainant’s evidence raised doubts over whether the alleged offence had happened.

He said contradictions appeared in the complainant’s police report and her complaint letter to the student affairs division of the Tuanku Bainun Teachers’ Training College (IPG), Bukit Mertajam.

“The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, warranting his acquittal without being called to enter his defence,” he said.

In its written submission, the prosecution said it had called five witnesses to prove its case against Irfan.

It said the accused and complainant were classmates at IPG Kampus Tuanku Bainun and had gone out together to buy food before stopping near Pantai Bersih.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, seated in the front passenger seat, turned towards the complainant, who was driving, and touched her without consent.

It said the complainant first raised the matter with IPG in September 2022 before lodging a police report on Sept 13, 2023.

The defence argued there were major inconsistencies in the complainant’s account in her police report, complaint letter, WhatsApp exchanges and oral testimony in court.

It also argued that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence for the accused to be called to enter his defence.