ABDUL RAHIM BIN WAHAP v Pendakwa Raya (Q-05(M)-17-01/2023)

The Appellant, Abdul Rahim bin Wahap, was charged, tried, and subsequently convicted by the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak at Miri for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The charge is read as follows: “That you ABDUL RAHIM BIN WAHAP (NRIC: 920724- 13-6969) on 28 November 2017 between 9:38 am and 29 November 2017 between 3.00 am, at Jambatan Lutong Miri, in the State of Sarawak, did commit murder by causing the death of YEONG BINTI MUSA (KPT: 650627-13-5430), and you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal

On 16 December 2022, the learned High Court Judge found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Appellant appealed to this Court. On the scheduled hearing date of 14 October 2025, when the matter came up before us, the Appellant through his learned counsel informed this Court of his intention to withdraw his appeal against the conviction, electing instead to pursue the appeal solely against the death sentence.

Following the withdrawal of the appeal against conviction, the conviction entered by the High Court was formally affirmed. Consequent to recent legislative changes introduced via the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, which vested statutory discretion in the courts regarding sentences for murder, we proceeded to hear mitigation from the Appellant’s counsel and submissions from the Respondent regarding the sentence.

Having fully considered the respective arguments, this Court unanimously (sebulat suara) set aside the death sentence and substituted it with a term of thirty (30) years imprisonment and twelve (12) strokes of whipping, imprisonment to run from the date of arrest, 4 December 2017. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

The Respondent (Public Prosecutor), being dissatisfied with the leniency of the substitute imprisonment term, has appealed further to the Federal Court. We now set out our grounds of judgment specifically concerning the imprisonment sentence imposed. B. FACTS OF THE CASE Prosecution Evidence 7. The prosecution called a total of thirty-nine (39) witnesses during the trial to establish its case. The evidence revealed that the deceased, Yeong binti Musa, arrived in Miri on 26 November 2017 and checked into three separate hotels (Mciti Hotel, Bright Inn, and Permy Inn Miri), where she was observed in the company of the Appellant.

The prosecution established that the Appellant and the deceased were involved in a romantic relationship. However, prior to her death, the relationship had soured significantly. The deceased discovered that the Appellant was married and felt cheated, which led her to demand that the Appellant repay monies she had spent on his workshop business. Witnesses S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ also overhead them quarrelling over the telephone regarding this matter.

On the night of the incident, a violent physical altercation took place between the Appellant and the deceased. The medical evidence adduced through the pathologist, Dr. Norliza binti Ibrahim (PW11) and the autopsy report (Exhibit P36) showed that the deceased suffered a right facial bone (right maxilla) fracture caused by blunt force trauma consistent with being punched or hit with a hard object. The deceased was rendered unconscious from the assault.

The Appellant then drove the deceased to Jambatan Lutong, Miri, where he callously disposed of her body by throwing her off the bridge into the river below. The pathologist confirmed that the primary cause of death arose from internal neck and chest injuries (including fractures to the C4, C5, and C6 vertebrae and multiple ribs), which were entirely consistent with falling from a height into the river structure. Crucially, the pathologist testified that the deceased bore no defensive wounds. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

The case against the Appellant was strengthened by compelling circumstantial and forensic evidence, as follows:

Following his arrest, the Appellant provided information to Insp. Saiful Azizi bin Kamlun (PW35) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1950, stating that he had thrown a green bag into the bushes at Marina Bay. He led the police directly to the scene, resulting in the discovery of a green fabric recycled 'OPPO' bag containing the deceased’s personal effects; and

(ii) A forensic chemist (PW9) conducted DNA analysis on samples taken from the Appellant’s vehicle. Bloodstains retrieved from the console box and the front passenger seat matched the DNA profile of the deceased.

At the close of the prosecution case, the High Court found that a prima facie case had been established and called upon the Appellant to enter his defence. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ Defence Evidence 13. The Appellant elected to give a sworn statement from the witness box and was the sole witness for the defence. In his witness statement (Exhibit WS-DW1), the Appellant completely denied having any intimate or romantic relationship with the deceased, asserting that they were merely friends and that he had never stayed or slept with her at any hotels.

The defence argued that there were no eye-witnesses to the actual killing and that the prosecution had failed to establish the exact mechanism or third-party involvement regarding how the deceased fell from the bridge. They also contested the admissibility of the Section 27 Evidence Act 1950 statement that led to the discovery of the green 'OPPO' bag.

However, under cross-examination by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, the Appellant explicitly admitted that his testimony and narration of events had been intentionally tailored to suit his own favor. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

At the end of the defence’s case, the trial Judge concluded that the defence was a bare denial that failed to raise any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case, and the prosecution has succeeded in proving their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the charge as framed. The accused was thereby convicted of the said charge. C. COURT OF APPEAL: MITIGATION BY THE APPELLANT

Before this Appellate Court, the legal posture of the defence shifted completely. By formally withdrawing the appeal against conviction, the Appellant abandoned his assertions of innocence, his denials of a romantic relationship, and his challenges against the forensic findings. The Appellant accepted his criminal culpability for the murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Consequently, the defence’s arguments were restricted to a plea for judicial mercy, requesting this Court to spare his life and substitute the death sentence with a term of imprisonment. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ Mitigation by the Appellant 18. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged this Court to exercise its statutory discretion under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 to substitute the death sentence with imprisonment. In mitigation, counsel highlighted the following factors:

Age: The Appellant was a young man of 25 years old at the time of the commission of the offence in 2017 (born in 1992). It was argued that his youth weighed in favor of giving him an opportunity for long-term rehabilitation.

(ii) Clean Record: The Appellant was a first-time offender with no prior criminal convictions before this incident.

(iii) Remorse and Judicial Time: By withdrawing his appeal against conviction at the Court of Appeal stage, the Appellant demonstrated genuine remorse and saved substantial judicial time and public resources. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

Learned counsel for the Appellant therefore pleaded for the minimum allowable custodial sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment and a lenient arrangement regarding the strokes of whipping. Submission by the Respondent 20. The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed any undue leniency and argued that the case warranted a severe and highly deterrent sentence. The Respondent emphasized the following aggravating features:

Cruelty and Brutality: The crime was executed in an incredibly callous manner. The deceased was structurally vulnerable, was severely assaulted to the face until unconscious, and was then thrown off a high bridge into a river to drown or succumb to her injuries.

(ii) Conduct Post-Offence: Rather than seeking medical help for the unconscious victim, the Appellant focused entirely on concealing his crime by checking out of the S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ hotel and throwing her personal belongings into the bushes.

The Respondent further submitted that public interest demanded a punishment that reflects the heinous nature of taking a human life over a domestic and monetary dispute, insisting that if death were set aside, the maximum term of imprisonment coupled with severe whipping should be imposed. D.

Following the legislative changes implemented via the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, the mandatory nature of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Penal Code has been replaced with a discretionary framework. The Court is now empowered to sentence an offender to death, or alternatively, to a term of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) years but not exceeding forty (40) years, and if not sentenced to death, shall also be punished with whipping of not less than twelve (12) strokes. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

In assessing the appropriate sentence, we must balance the mitigating elements of the offender against the aggravating characteristics of the crime, always keeping the overarching element of public interest at the forefront.

This Court observed that the offence committed by the Appellant resulted in the violent and tragic loss of one human life. The facts demonstrated a high level of calculated cold-bloodedness. The Appellant did not stop at a physical assault; after incapacitating the deceased via a severe facial fracture, he transported her to the Lutong Bridge and dumped her into the river to ensure the elimination of any witnesses. Such absolute disregard for the sanctity of human life cannot be condoned.

It is the unanimous opinion (sebulat suara) of this Court that a sentence for an offence that has unconscionably claimed a human life must be deeply reflective of, and commensurate with, the gravity of the wrong committed by the Appellant. The loss of a human life is an irreversible tragedy, and the punishment meted out by the courts must firmly mirror that gravity to serve as a proper deterrent to society. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

In addition, this Court also took into consideration the fact that the Appellant is a first-time offender and has no previous criminal convictions prior to the commission of the present offence. Moreover, his decision to withdraw his appeal against conviction before the Court of Appeal demonstrates his genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his actions. By doing so, the Appellant obviated the need for a contested appeal, thereby conserving valuable judicial time and public resources. Such conduct constitutes a relevant mitigating factor which this Court ought properly to take into account in the exercise of its sentencing discretion.

For these reasons, we found that the statutory minimum sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment would be adequate and proportionate to the Appellant’s conduct. On the flip side, we took into account that the Appellant was relatively young at the material time, meaning a higher term of imprisonment might completely destroy any prospective chance of a reformed life post-incarceration. S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ

Accordingly, we weighed the scales of justice and unanimously decided that the fit and proper sentence to meet the ends of justice was to set aside the death sentence and substitute it with a term of thirty (30) years imprisonment, to be calculated from the date of his arrest, 4 December 2017 and twelve (12) strokes of whipping.

It is our considered view that this substituted sentence adequately satisfies the principles of retribution and public deterrence while leaving a minor window open for the rehabilitation of the Appellant. Dated the 8th day of July 2026 -sgd- (AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Putrajaya S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ Counsel For the Appellant : Mr Firdaus Bin Morshidi and Mr Ikmal Iqbal bin Baharuddin [Firdaus & Company (Miri)] For the Respondent : TPR Tuan Mohd Amril bin Johari [Attorney General's Chambers] S/N dZzc982lr0O5PwHa7nycDQ