Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the act itself. The victim thought that the act was a surgical operation. In the case of
PP v Abdul Rahman Mohamad, the accussed was convicted with rape of a 20 year
old girl. The accussed was a bomoh, trying to cure the victims illness. He told her
that he would perform a therapy and if she refused to submit, then she would become
insane or would meet with death. The court held that the victim was under the
misconception that of the fact that she was being treated by a prominent spiritual
healer. Her mind was clouded and confused and devoid of free will that it cannot be
said that she consented to the act.
In our case, Cinta was told by Joni that if she had sex with him, she would become
beautiful. It seems like Cintas misconception was more to the result of the act, rather
than the nature of the act itself. Assumming Cinta is an adult, she would clearly
understand the act of a sexual intercourse. Just because she thought that the act would
make her beautiful while in fact it didnt, it doesnt mean that she was under
misconception of facts. The court in the case of Clarence has held that the term
misconception cannot be construed too widely or not every case in which a man
infects a woman or commits bigamy, the second wife being ignorant of the first
marriage, is also a case of rape. Thus, the only misconception accepted in that case is
the misconception of the nature of the act itself. Cintas case is distinguished from R v
Williams and PP v Abdul Rahmans case. in the earlier 2 cases, the victims didnt
seem to understand the act of sexual intercourse itself and had called them a surgical
and therapy treatment. In Cintas situation, Joni clearly told her to have sex with him
and she seems to understand the act of sex. In conclusion, it cannot be said that
Cintas consent is under misconception of facts.
Therefore, Joni is unlikely to be convicted for rape under section 375.