His lawyer, Baharudeen Ariff, argued in an appeal against the conviction that the prosecution’s narrative was unclear and could prejudice his 30-year-old client’s case.

“The issue is the narrative. The evidence is all over the place. At one point, they claimed that there was no consent, at another they said there was consent. The prosecution’s case is confusing and misleading,” he told the court.

Under Section 375 of the Penal Code, the offence of rape covers non-consensual intercourse, or where consent is invalid due to fear, deception, mental incapacity, or abuse of authority.

Baharudeen said the prosecution initially argued that the appellant had placed the victim in fear of danger, which falls under paragraph (c) of Section 375, but later focused on her mental state under paragraph (e).

“The question is, where are you coming from? What is your narrative and what is your case? If they relied solely on consent, the victim’s mental state and fear would not have been discussed at such length. Most of the evidence touched on multiple limbs (of Section 375).

“You cannot run your case under all circumstances at once. That would be prejudicial to the accused and a misdirection to the court,” he said.

He said it was the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judge Adlin Abdul Majid set Jan 23 for his decision.

On Aug 30 last year, the sessions court found Syed Shah Iqmal guilty of raping a woman, and sentenced him to 10 years in prison and three strokes of the rotan.

The woman was 23 at the time of the incident.

The court ruled that the accused’s evidence was insufficient to challenge the prosecution’s case that the rape had taken place.

It also found that the prosecution had proven the victim was weakened by depression, which impaired her ability to resist and make decisions.

The following month, the High Court allowed a stay of execution pending his appeal.