Rocky case: lawyer urges netizens to apologise after viral abuse claims

KUALA LUMPUR, 20 AUGUST 2026 —

Muhammad Shah Idham Nor Haikal Shaharom, 24, stood outside the Klang Sessions Court on Thursday evening as the setting sun painted the courthouse walls amber, his lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali at his side.

“Show me the word ‘kill’ in the charge sheet,” Rafique said, his voice rising above the hum of the crowd. “Show me the word ‘torture.’” He went on to invite those who had labelled his client a cruel killer to apologise to a 24-year-old. Shah Idham and the dog’s owner, S Roghini Devi, 42, had both pleaded not guilty after the charges were read before Judge Mujib Saroji.

The prosecution alleges that on 29 July between 11 p.m. and 11.30 p.m., in a house on Jalan Sama Gagah, Taman Telok Gedung Indah, Port Klang, Shah Idham used a looped tool to restrain Rocky and Roghini Devi unreasonably pulled the animal. The charges are brought under Section 29(1)(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015. If convicted, both face fines of between RM20,000 and RM100,000, up to three years in prison, or both.

Rafique also moved to correct a narrative that had taken root within hours of the incident. Shah Idham, he said, is not an employee of the Klang Municipal Council but a volunteer. The clarification came after social media erupted with claims that a council worker had allegedly tortured Rocky. Posts described the animal as “beaten to death,” a characterisation Rafique called invented.

Veterinary records cited in court confirm Rocky was treated for minor injuries and released to Roghini Devi the next day. The records do not describe fractures, internal bleeding or wounds consistent with blunt-force trauma. “If the dog was dead, we would know,” Rafique said. “The charge sheet does not say it died. It says it suffered pain. Two very different things.”

At the same hearing, Roghini Devi pleaded not guilty to pulling Rocky unreasonably. The case now turns on the interpretation of “unnecessary suffering,” the phrase at the heart of Section 29(1)(e). Rafique argued that the prosecution’s description of a looped restraint did not meet the threshold of cruelty implied in viral posts. “The charge does not mention beating, striking, or killing,” he said. “It speaks of causing pain.”

Lawyers and court observers say the outcome may hinge on veterinary evidence about the dog’s condition and whether the restraint used was indeed capable of inflicting the pain alleged. The hearing continues with no trial date set.

The episode has exposed fault lines in how viral outrage can reshape a legal dispute before the facts are tested in court. Rafique’s plea to those who labelled Shah Idham a killer reflects a growing frustration among defence lawyers who see social media as an accelerant of unproven accusations. Public reaction has been swift and polarised.

Supporters of Rocky have shared distressed images of the animal, while others have questioned whether the legal threshold for “unnecessary suffering” needs clearer definition.

Animal welfare groups have called for stronger penalties under the Animal Welfare Act, while civil-liberties advocates argue that swift online verdicts risk prejudicing fair trials. The courtroom itself offered little resolution on Thursday. Judge Mujib Saroji accepted the not-guilty pleas and set no conditions for bail. Shah Idham left flanked by family, his face unreadable beneath the fluorescent lights.

Rafique said he expects a case management hearing within weeks, though no date has been fixed. Until then, the public debate over Rocky’s treatment risks outpacing the legal process, with each side marshalling its own version of events. What is clear is that the viral narrative has already shaped expectations.

Rafique’s call for apologies underscores a dilemma that increasingly confronts Malaysian courts: when social media rushes to judgment, how can the presumption of innocence survive the glare of outrage?