The Singapore High Court has acquitted Muhamad Adil bin Saidin of charges of sexual assault involving penetration and outrage of modesty against a vulnerable person, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Kwek Mean Luck of the General Division of the High Court delivered the judgment on October 9 in Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Adil bin Saidin (2026) SGHC 212, following a trial in which the accused contested both charges.
Chew Shi Jun James and Ong Kah Yong Timothy of the Attorney-General’s Chambers appeared for the prosecution, while Derek Kang Yu Hsien and Tan Lin Yin Vickie of Cairnhill Law LLC represented the accused.
The charges arose from an alleged incident on October 30, 2024 at a staircase on the 19th floor of a residential block. The prosecution alleged that the accused caused the complainant’s penis to penetrate his mouth and squeezed the complainant’s penis.
The complainant, who was about 21 at the time, had autism spectrum disorder and a history of significant difficulties with verbal communication. The accused denied both allegations, maintaining that they had spoken about a bicycle, bullying and the complainant’s family difficulties before going upstairs to continue their conversation.
The prosecution relied on the complainant’s testimony, CCTV footage, the accused’s account of seeing a police car and disclosures allegedly made by the complainant shortly after the incident.
The court considered whether the complainant’s evidence was sufficiently reliable to support a conviction. Where a complainant’s testimony is the sole basis for conviction, it must be “unusually convincing” to overcome the absence of corroboration. The judge emphasised that this was not a separate legal test, but a reminder that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In assessing the complainant’s evidence, the judge considered his autism spectrum disorder and its possible effects on his understanding, communication and susceptibility to suggestion. However, the complainant could answer questions coherently, disagree with defence counsel and acknowledge when he could not remember something. The judge cautioned against attributing every inconsistency to his condition.
The court found that the four categories of evidence relied on by the prosecution did not independently corroborate the complainant’s account. Although the judge accepted that the complainant had made complaints shortly after the alleged incident, those disclosures did not resolve the material inconsistencies in his testimony.
The judge was also unconvinced by the complainant’s explanation that he had followed the accused upstairs because he usually complied with other people’s requests and feared being harmed. Medical evidence did not establish that he would invariably comply, while the CCTV footage did not show observable signs of fear. The judge nevertheless acknowledged that fear does not always manifest outwardly.
Audio recorded in a lift captured the accused telling the complainant that they could pretend not to know each other in public. The judge accepted the accused’s explanation that they had been discussing bullying and that he wanted to help the complainant identify those responsible without revealing their connection. The conversation appeared friendly, but the judge did not treat the complainant’s outward demeanour as conclusive proof that he was not afraid.
A significant concern arose from the complainant’s description of the alleged sexual act. The judge found it difficult to reconcile the positions described with the allegation that the accused had performed oral sex while seated and the complainant stood one or two steps above him. Even on the prosecution’s case, the measurements indicated a gap of approximately 16 to 17 centimetres between the accused’s mouth and the complainant’s penis in the closest position described.
The judge did not find the alleged act physically impossible, but considered it implausible in the positions described. This concern also undermined the prosecution’s case concerning the alleged squeezing.
The court also considered a material change in the complainant’s account of how his clothing had been removed. At trial, he said he had pulled down his own trousers and underwear because he was frightened. However, he had repeatedly told the police, a medical professional and another witness that the accused had pulled them down. The judge considered this an important detail that would not easily be forgotten and found that the discrepancy was not adequately explained by the complainant’s condition or the passage of time.
Other discrepancies concerning the complainant’s responses, the use of one or two hands, the precise location of the alleged squeezing and the sensations experienced were not, individually, sufficient to undermine his credibility. The judge accepted that some differences could reasonably arise from confusion, suggestibility or ordinary failures of memory.
The prosecution also argued that the accused’s evidence was evasive and that CCTV footage contradicted his account. The judge rejected these submissions, finding that the accused’s answers were generally consistent and that the footage did not make his explanation improbable or impossible.
The judge found that the alleged inconsistencies in the accused’s account either were not genuine inconsistencies or concerned minor details. His explanation that the complainant had followed him voluntarily and that he had not asked the complainant to do so remained plausible.
The defence had also argued that the alleged acts were improbable because they would have taken place on a staircase where residents or people leaving the lift could potentially see them. The judge noted that sexual offences in public places were not inherently implausible and assessed the circumstances of the case rather than applying a blanket rule.
Although the judge found no apparent reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused, the absence of an apparent motive to fabricate did not, by itself, establish the reliability of his evidence.
Having assessed the evidence as a whole, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed either alleged act. The accused was acquitted of both charges.
This is an unofficial case summary prepared by LexBru for informational and educational purposes only. It has not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by the Singapore Courts. Please refer to the full judgment https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_212 published on the Singapore Courts website for the Court’s full grounds of decision.