AL AMIN v Pendakwa Raya (W-05(H)-566-12/2024)

The appellant was initially charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The prosecution accepted his representation and offered an alternative charge under Section 304(a) PC.

The alternative charge against the appellant read as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 4.04.2021 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang, di bahagian belakang kedai gunting rambut Jolly Light Batu 4 ½, Jalan Ipoh di dalam daerah Sentul, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah melakukan perbuatan yang menyebabkan kematian Islam Mahabul (No Pasport: BQ 0522250) dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematian dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan mematikan orang dengan salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan”.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the alternative charge and was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest. He was dissatisfied with the sentence imposed and lodged an appeal to this court.

The appellant and the deceased were Bangladeshi nationals who not only lived together as roommates but also were uncle and nephew. Around 5.30 p.m. on 4 April 2021, the appellant was chopping onions in preparation for dinner. Before he could start cooking, the deceased began reprimanding him, which upset the appellant and led to a heated exchange. During the argument, the appellant inflicted a stab wound to the deceased’s chest. The commotion drew the attention of nearby residents. The deceased was found sitting on a chair, clutching his chest, and he later died from his injuries. The appellant was arrested later that night.

In mitigation, the appellant’s counsel emphasised that the appellant had no previous convictions. He was 41 years old, married with two young children, and had expressed a wish to return to Bangladesh to reunite with his family. According to the appellant, the deceased was the aggressor. He was said to have thrown an empty paint can at the appellant, which the appellant did not respond to. The deceased then allegedly struck the appellant with a broomstick. A struggle ensued, during which the appellant swung the knife he had been using. He maintained that he had no intention of killing the deceased when the fatal blow was delivered.

The High Court, in passing sentence, considered the public interest and emphasised that the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court opined that serving the public interest would best be achieved by imposing a lengthy term of imprisonment. The Court held that this would not only prevent the appellant from committing further crimes but also safeguard the public. The court acknowledged the appellant’s guilty plea, which saved the court time, and noted that an accused would usually be granted a reduction in their prison term. However, the High Court was more inclined to impose a lengthy imprisonment because the appellant had committed a serious crime and a life had been lost. The High Court also considered the trend of sentencing for similar offences and sentenced the appellant to 15 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest. The appeal

The appellant represented himself in this appeal. He sought to have the imprisonment term reduced because he wanted to return to Bangladesh to be with his family.

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (‘DPP’) urged this court to uphold the sentence imposed by the High Court. Learned counsel argued that the appellant had failed to meet any criteria that would warrant a reduction in his prison term. Our decision

In an appeal concerning a sentence, the role of this court is limited to review. A sentence from the sentencing court should only be altered if it is manifestly excessive or insufficient.

This Court in Pendakwa Raya v. Prabu A/L Veeramuthu and Ors [2010] 8 CLJ 257 reiterated the well-established principle that in an appeal against a sentence, an appellate court would not disturb the sentence unless the trial court had erred in applying the correct principles of sentencing or had undertaken an unauthorised or extraneous exercise of discretion. An appellate intervention is only justified if the sentence imposed is clearly excessive or inadequate.

We are of the opinion that the High Court appropriately considered the relevant factors before reaching its decision. The learned Judge correctly emphasised the importance of public interest, which should be the foremost consideration. The learned DPP effectively aided us by presenting the sentencing trends for similar cases. The fifteen-year imprisonment given to the appellant is comparatively lighter than the typical range, as the trend tends towards sentences of eighteen to twenty years. It is evidently not excessive.

We are satisfied that the sentence imposed by the High Court is proportionate to the crime and the circumstances of the case. We find no reason to intervene and, therefore, dismiss the appeal. The High Court’s sentence is upheld. Dated: 26 November 2025 -sgd- (MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN) (JUDGE) COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA Counsel for the Respondent :