SHAH ALAM - Lawyers have highlighted that the differing charges against the accused in cyberbullying victim Rajeswary Appahu, known as Esha's case are likely due to the availability of evidence. Only the Attorney-General can clarify these specific differences.
In Esha’s cyberbullying ordeal, a pressing question arises: why were the accused charged differently?
This discrepancy has sparked public debate and concern, highlighting the complexities of legal proceedings in cyberbullying cases.
Legal Actions Against the Two Accused
On July 16, P. Shalini, a 35-year-old TikTok user known as @alphaquinnsha, pleaded guilty at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrates’ Court.
She was charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 for using vulgar language on TikTok with the intent to incite anger and disrupt peace.
The court imposed a fine of RM100, the maximum penalty under this section.
In a related case, the sentencing of B. Sathiskumar, a 44-year-old lorry driver, was postponed by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
Sathiskumar, who is also linked to Esha’s bullying case, requested additional time to secure legal representation.
He pleaded guilty to charges under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for posting offensive comments on his TikTok account, "Dulal Brothers 360," with the intent to annoy others.
He faces trial under Section 509 of the Penal Code for allegedly posting lewd comments targeting Puspa on his TikTok account.
Definition of the Charges
Former Selangor Bar Chairman Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo and lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan explained that Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 address different types of legal violations.
"Section 233(1)(a) deals with the misuse of network facilities or services.
"It makes it an offence to knowingly use network services to transmit any comment or communication that is obscene, indecent, false, menacing, or offensive with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass someone.
"Violations under this section can lead to a fine of up to RM50,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
"In contrast, Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 covers a broader range of minor offences related to insulting behaviour.
It includes the use of indecent, threatening, or abusive language or gestures intended to disturb the peace or provoke another person.
Offences under this section are subject to a fine not exceeding RM100.
"While Section 233(1)(a) is focused on digital communications and multimedia platforms, Section 14 encompasses various minor offences not specifically related to communications or digital services,” they said.
Reasons for the Different Charges Against the Two Accused
Kokila claimed that the primary reason for charging the two suspects under different sections likely stems from the availability of evidence.
She noted that if sufficient evidence to support a charge under Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA 1998 is lacking, the suspects may instead be charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act.
Kokila also addressed the public outrage over Shalini's RM100 fine.
"P. Shalini, 35, was charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955, which stipulates a maximum fine of RM100. As such, the judge's sentencing cannot exceed this limit.
"However, this does not preclude the possibility of her being charged with a different offence under the Communications and Multimedia Act if sufficient evidence arises in the future,” she said.
Meanwhile, Rajesh emphasised that only the Attorney-General can explain why P. Shalini and B. Sathiskumar were charged with different offences, as charging individuals falls under the Attorney-General's discretion according to Article 145 of the Federal Constitution.
"Despite the crimes being nearly identical, the choice of charges remains a matter for the Attorney-General.
"The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has a duty to explain its actions to the Malaysian public.
"The RM100 fine is the maximum penalty under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act.
"In my opinion, the charge and its corresponding punishment are disproportionately lenient compared to the severity of the crime committed,” he added.
Rajesh reiterated that the AGC must explain why Shalini was charged with such a minor offence, especially given that both offenders committed similar crimes.
Esha, an influencer, died by suicide on July 5 shortly after filing a police report about threats and defamation she faced on social media platforms, following severe cyberbullying by the accused.