High Court Upholds Conviction and Sentence in High-Profile Rape Appeal Involving Celebrity Preacher

27 January 2026

The High Court in Shah Alam has dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence by celebrity preacher Syed Shah Iqmal Syed Mohd Shaiful (also known as “Da’i Syed”), and upheld the punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. 

This development follows the Sessions Court’s conviction on 30 August 2024, where the court held that the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s case, and imposed the above sentence. The Sessions Court also refused a stay of execution pending appeal, finding that “special circumstances” were not proven.

The accused was tried before the Sessions Court in Shah Alam on a charge under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, arising from an alleged incident in September 2019 involving a 23-year-old complainant.

Key procedural milestones set out in the written grounds include:

• Proceedings commenced in December 2020, and the prosecution case concluded in April 2023, where the accused was initially acquitted without being called to enter defence.

• The prosecution appealed, and on 7 March 2024, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered the accused to enter defence in the Sessions Court.

• The accused’s Court of Appeal challenge to the High Court’s March 2024 order was later withdrawn (as recorded in the Sessions Court grounds), and the defence case proceeded.

• On 30 August 2024, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused, and noted that the accused and prosecution subsequently filed notices of appeal (against conviction and sentence, and against sentence respectively).

Some of the key takeaways from the Sessions Court’s written grounds, which have attracted significant public attention, include the following:-

1. The court’s approach to complainant testimony in sexual offence trials 

The Sessions Court discussed the practice of scrutinising complainant evidence with care, including the principle of the testimony being consistent with documentary evidence  and the broader prudential consideration of corroboration.

2. The framework at the end of the defence case: “reasonable doubt” and the burden of proof 

The grounds reiterate that the court must decide whether the prosecution has proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the defence has raised a reasonable doubt, referencing the statutory trial framework.

3. Evaluation of the defence case (denial versus credible doubt) 

In rejecting the defence, the court emphasised that a bare denial unsupported by reliable evidence is generally insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, particularly where the prosecution’s case is supported by documents and witnesses.

4. Sentencing considerations and public interest 

In sentencing, the Sessions Court placed weight on public interest considerations, including the accused’s public standing and influence, in assessing an appropriate punishment.