• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Guard freed of oral sex charge

P

Pang De

Guest

Published: Tuesday January 25, 2011 MYT 12:24:00 PM

Guard freed of oral sex charge

By M. MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: A security guard was acquitted by a Sessions Court of a charge of forcing an underage slow learner to perform oral sex on him in a toilet. T. Prabagar, 36, smiled upon hearing the court verdict Tuesday.

One of his lawyers, D. Santanam, told Prabagar to "break a coconut" when he walked out of the dock. In her decision, Sessions Court judge Fathiyah Idris ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused.

Therefore, Fathiyah held that Prabagar would be freed without his defence being called against the charge. The judge made the ruling after hearing evidence from 10 prosecution witnesses from Sept 1, last year.

Prabagar claimed trial to a charge of forcing the 13-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him at a show house unit's toilet in Bandar Baru Sentul at 4pm on May 20, 2007. The accused is working at the show house unit.

The minor lodged a complaint over the matter five days later. The boy testified in court that he was playing with his four friends under a tree before he was allegedly forced to perform the act in the toilet.

HKL clinical psychologist Putri Intan Dianah, who supplied the court a psychological report on the assessment of intellectual and behavourial ability on the boy, testied in court that the minor was reported to have learning difficulties since small.

His lawyer A.Saravanan submitted that the allegations over oral sex could not be proven as the prosecution had failed to call his four friends to support the claim. "There is no direct eye witness. It is basically a hearsay," he said.

Besides that, Saravanan submitted that the prosecution had failed to supply a medical report on the complainant to prove their case and that the psychological report was not enough to substantiate their claim.

 
Top