Che Mohd Badrul Hisyam Bin Che Hasan Basri v Public Prosecutor (DA-42S-55-07/2017)

(A) BACK GROUND [1] The Accused/Appellant was charged for committing 3 counts of rape on an underage girl, an offence under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code, and punishable under the same section. [2] Upon pleading guilty, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment from the date of his arrest (28/6/2017) and 3 strokes of whipping for each charge 2 respectively. He also ordered that the sentences to run consecutively. Dissatisfied, the Accused/Appellant filed an appeal before this Court, on both conviction and sentence. [3] Upon hearing the appeal, this Court dismissed the appeal on conviction but allowed the appeal of the Accused/Appellant in part, whereby the 10 years sentence imposed for each charge was affirmed but the time that the sentences were to run was varied. This court ruled that the sentence for the first charge was affirmed to run from the date of his arrest and that the sentence for the second charge was to run concurrently with the sentence for the third charge, upon completion of the sentence for the first charge. The order of 3 strokes of whipping imposed on each charge was affirmed. [4] Still dissatisfied, the Accused/Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on sentence. These are the Grounds of Judgment for the decision of this Court. (On sentence only).

(B) THE CHARGES First Charge “Bahawa kamu pada pertengahan bulan Mei tahun 2014 jam lebih kurang 0100 pagi hingga 0200 pagi, bertempat di dalam bilik rumah Kampung Gong Chokoh, 16800 Pasir Puteh Kelantan, di dalam Daerah Pasir Puteh, di Negeri Kelantan telah merogol penama Nik 3 Nor Farah Hidayah binti Nik Basri no. KP.: 051106-03-0954, berumur 9 tahun 7 bulan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan.” Second Charge “Bahawa kamu pada pertengahan bulan januari hingga Disember tahun 2015 jam lebih kurang 0100 pagi hingga 0200, bertempat di dalam bilik rumah Kampung Gong Chokoh 16800 Pasir Puteh Kelantan, di dalam Daerah Pasir Puteh di negeri Kelantan, telah merogol penama Nik Nor Farah Hidayah binti Nik Basri no. KP.: 051106-03-0954, berumur 10 tahun 1 bulan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan.” Third Charge “Bahawa kamu pada pertengahan bulan januari hingga Disember tahun 2016 jam lebih kurang 0100 pagi hingga 0200 pagi, bertempat di dalam bilik rumah Kampung Gong Chokoh 16800 Pasir Puteh Kelantan, di dalam Daerah Pasir Puteh di negeri Kelantan, telah merogol penama Nik Nor Farah Hidayah binti Nik Basri no. KP.: 051106-03-0954, berumur 11 tahun 1 bulan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan.” 4

(C) THE FACTS OF THE CASE [5] The facts of the case can be gleaned from the “Fakta Kes” tendered by the prosecution which can be found at pages 28 and 29 of the Appeal Record (Jilid 3) which are reproduced as envisaged below: “1. Pengadu dalam kes ini Fuaziana binti Usop (No. K.P.: 850915-03-6206) yang beralamat di Kampung Kutan Sungai, 16250 Wakaf Bharu, Kelantan.

Pada pertengahan bulan Mei tahun 2014 jam lebih kurang 1 hingga 2 pagi, mangsa bernama Nik Nor Farah Hidayah binti Nik Basri (No. K.P.: 051103-03-0954) berumur 9 tahun 7 bulan berada di dalam bilik di rumah Kampung Gong Chokoh, 16800 Pasir Puteh, Kelantan. Tiba-tiba Che Mohd Badrul Hisyam bin Che Hasan Basri iaitu Tertuduh masuk ke dalam bilik mangsa dan telah memecat seluar mangsa.

Tertuduh telah membuka seluarnya dalam keadaan separuh lutut dan memegang kemaluan Tertuduh dan menggesel-gesel kemaluan Tertuduh di tepi kemaluan mangsa. Tertuduh juga ada mencium tengkuk mangsa dalam anggaran 5 – 6 kali. Pada masa kejadian, mangsa dalam keadaan berbaring dan Tertuduh menindih badan mangsa dengan memegang kemaluan Tertuduh. Tertuduh kemudian telah memasukkan kemaluan 5 Tertuduh ke dalam kemaluan mangsa. Tertuduh telah memancutkan air maninya di bahagian luar tepi katil mangsa dan Tertuduh telah mengesat air mani dengan baju Tertuduh. Selepas 2 minit, Tertuduh telah keluar dari bilik mangsa dan mangsa terus memakai semula seluar mangsa dan terus tidur.

Pada pertengahan bulan Januari hingga Disember tahun 2015 jam lebih kurang 1 hingga 2 pagi, semasa mangsa berada di dalam bilik di rumah Kampung Gong Chokoh, 16800 Pasir Puteh, Kelantan, Tertuduh telah merogol mangsa dengan memasukkan kemaluan Tertuduh ke dalam kemaluan mangsa. Pada tempoh itu, mangsa berumur 10 tahun 1 bulan.

Pada pertengahan bulan Januari hingga Disember tahun 2016 jam lebih kurang 1 hingga 2 pagi, semasa mangsa berada di dalam bilik di rumah Kampung Gong Chokoh, 16800 Pasir Puteh, Kelantan, Tertuduh telah merogol mangsa dengan memasukkan kemaluan Tertuduh ke dalam kemaluan mangsa. Pada tempoh itu, mangsa berumur 11 tahun 1 bulan.

Siasatan kes telah dijalankan oleh Inspektor Nadziran binti Mohd Nasir, Pegawai Penyiasat Jenayah IPD Pasir Puteh, Kelantan. Tertuduh telah berjaya ditangkap pada 6 28/6/2017 oleh sepasukan anggota Polis dan repot tangkapan sebagaimana Bukit Yong Report 857-858/17.

Mangsa telah dibawa ke Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Kota Bharu untuk pemeriksaan lanjut. Hasil pemeriksaan yang dijalankan, terdapat kesan koyakan lama pada kedudukan jam 3, 6, 9 dan 12.

Tertuduh telah dituduh bagi 3 pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan dan mengaku salah sepertimana pertuduhan.”

(D) THE LAW ON APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE [6] The law on appeal against sentence is manifest that the appellate court should be slow to interfere or disturb with the sentence passed by the court below unless it is manifestly wrong or unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that another court might pass a different sentence, provides no reason for the appellate court to interfere if the trial court applies the correct principles of sentencing. [7] Although there is a plethora of authorities on this point, suffice for this Court to apply the principles of sentencing as enunciated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in PP vs. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869 viz – 7 “[14] The appellate court can and will interfere in the sentence imposed by the lower court if it is satisfied that any of the following four grounds are made out:

The sentencing judge had made a wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for the sentence;

There had been an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material facts placed before him;

The sentence was wrong in principle; or

The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. (See R v. Ball [1951] 35 Cr App. R 164; Loo Weng Fatt v. Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR 313 at para [65]; Public Prosecutor v. UI [2008] 4 SLR (R) 500)”. [8] To generalize it, whilst an appellate court should be slow in interfering the sentence imposed by the trial court in the exercise of their discretion as sentencing is not a science of mathematical application, an appellate court can interfere on the sentence if it is wrong in principle or the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate. In fact the court of Criminal Appeal in Dookes vs. PP [2010] SCJ 71 said “However, even if there is nothing wrong with the principle, the sentence may be increased by the appellate court if it is unduly lenient.” 8

(E) FINDINGS OF SESSIONS COURT [9] The Sessions Court Judge amongst others took into consideration the public interest that warrants that the offenders be sentenced severely as rape is a very serious offence. At page 17 & 18 of the Appeal Record, this was what he said: “[29] Saya mengambil kira factor kepentingan awam sebagai salah satu factor yang penting bagi menentukan hukuman yang dikenakan. [30] Faktor ini membolehkan saya berpendapat bahawa hukuman seumpama ini berupaya melindungi gadis atau kanak-kanak yang di bawah umur dan masih bersekolah di peringkat sekolah rendah daripada diperkosa oleh penjenayah seperti OKT. [31] Saya juga berpendapat bahawa jenayah rogol merupakan satu jenayah yang serius yang perlu saya berikan perhatian terutamanya jenayah rogol yang melibatkan mangsa yang berumur di bawah 16 tahun. [32] Satu bentuk hukuman yang keras harus diberikan agar selari dengan manifestasi Subseksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan itu sendiri. 9 [33] Selain itu juga, saya telah mengambil kira faktor-faktor peringanan hukuman yang biasa ditimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dan juga faktor-faktor pemberat yang dinyatakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. [34] Saya telah menimbangkan hukuman atau perintah yang lain yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang seperti perintah di bawah Seksyen 293 atau 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dalam menimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai ke atas OKT. [35] Saya juga berpendapat bahawa tiada faktor istimewa untuk saya pertimbangkan bagi satu perintah di bawah seksyen-seksyen tersebut. [36] Di samping itu juga, saya telah mangambil kira faktor-faktor peringanan hukuman OKT iaitu pengakuan bersalah, faktor pesalah pertama dan yang lain, yang mana kesemua faktor ini ditenggelamkan oleh faktor kepentingan awam. Rujukan saya ialah kepada kes PR v. Mohd Fuad bin Othman [2000] 1 LNS 190; [2001] 5 MLJ 549. [37] Kebiasaanya, akuan bersalah adalah merupakan satu faktor peringanan saya pertimbangkan dalam memberikan hak kepada OKT agar hukuman dikurangkan. 10 [38] Namun, tidak semua akuan bersalah boleh diberikan keistimewaan tersebut dan dalam kes ini saya memilih untuk tidak memberikan pengurangan tersebut berdasarkan kepada kes Sau Soo Kim v. PP [1975] 1 LNS 158; [1975] 2 MLJ 134.”

(F) ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT [10] This Court shares the view that rape is a very serious offence regardless whether it is simple rape per se, statutory rape or aggravated rape like incest. [11] The Learned Sessions Judge in complying with the principles of sentencing was right in deciding that public interest is of paramount importance. It should supersede the interest of the Accused/Appellant. However, the personal interest of the Accused should not be ignored as the court has the duty to consider it as well. [12] Hence, this court did not disregard the rights of the Accused/Appellant i.e. to have his personal interest considered by this court as well see Tan Sri Abdul Rahim bin Mohd Noor v. PP [2001] 1 MLJ 193. There are circumstances in which public interest itself warrants that an accused person should not be put behind bars for far too long as that will do more harm than good as it might cause a crushing effect on him, and could turn him into a hardened criminal. 11 [13] Hence a sentence that should be imposed should be one that could induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. In the words of Hashim Yeop Sani, High Court Judge Malaya as he then was in the case of Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 who said: “The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living”. [14] Hence this court needs to strike a balance in order to do justice to the Accused/Appellant and to the public and the victim. Towards that end, this court had embarked on a balancing exercise, balancing the public interest with that of the fact that the Accused/Appellant had repented and remorseful, had promised to “turn over a new leaf” upon completing his time in prison. The Learned Sessions Judge had imposed a cumulative sentence of 30 years imprisonment in total and 9 strokes of whipping for the 3 offences. After embarking on a balancing exercise in considering all the factors as envisaged in the following paragraphs and applying all the established sentencing principles, this court ruled that, in so far as the circumstances of this case were concerned, public interest will be best served by imposing a total cumulative sentence of 20 years imprisonment and 9 whippings, instead of the total imprisonment of 30 years. [15] This court had considered that the Accused had pleaded guilty even though he was not represented at the court below. There are a plethora of authorities to suggest that this factor should be 12 considered as much public time and money will be spared if an accused person admits his guilt, thus avoiding a prolonged and unnecessary trial (PP v. Ravindran and Others [1992] 1 LNS 47) and (Sau Soon Kim v. PP [1975] 2 MLJ 134). The learned Sessions Judge erred when he refused to consider this element outrightly. [16] This court had also considered that the Accused/Appellant was a first offender and this factor should be considered in favour of the Accused/Appellant. Admittedly this factor had also to be considered with other relevant factors based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Concurrent or consecutive sentence? [17] In determining whether the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively, the courts may use the one transaction principle or the totality principle [see Bachik bin Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 MLJ 534 (CA)]. [18] The one transaction principle applies where 2 or more offences were committed in the course of a single transaction, and the sentences for these offences should be concurrent. For there to be one transaction 4 elements should be present i.e. proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design [see Jayaraman v. PP [1979] 2 MLJ 88; Amrita Lal Hazra v. Emperor 42 cal 957]. 13 [19] This can be well explained by referring to the case of PP v. Prabu Veeramuthu [2009] 3 MLJ 470. In this case, both the accused were charged with two charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The court ordered the sentences of 16 years’ imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently since the offences were committed in a single transaction. [20] Similarly in Annantan Subramaniam v. PP [2007] 8 CLJ 1, the appellant pleaded guilty for the offence of rape under section 376 of the Penal Code and for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the same victim under section 326 of the Penal Code. On appeal, the court held that there was continuity of action since both offences were clearly connected by proximity of time and place. Thus the sentences should run concurrently. [21] On the other hand, on the totality principle, the court will look at the total sum of the sentences imposed and whether in totality, they are excessive or harsh or having a crushing effect on the accused. If the total sentence is excessive then the court may order two or more sentences to run concurrently. The totality principle was applied in the Federal Court case in Sau Soo Kim v. PP [1975] 2 MLJ 134. The accused in that case was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the first charge for attempt to commit murder by firing a revolver at a police party under section 307 of the Penal Code and 4 years each on two other unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition 14 respectively under section 3 of the Arms Act 1960, i.e. a total of 18 years of imprisonment. [22] The Federal Court held that the consecutive sentences of 18 years' imprisonment were too excessive and harsh and ordered the sentences for the second and third charges to run concurrently as they were offences which were similar in nature, thus making a total sentence of 14 years' imprisonment - (see also Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman [2004] 2 MLJ 534). [23] As there are no hard or fuss rule as to which principle to apply, the courts in Malaysia seems to apply a fusion of both principles. [24] Reverting back to the case at hand, in the light of the authorities alluded to earlier, this court was of the considered opinion that a fusion of both principles should be an option. [25] This was because the total cumulative sentence of 30 years was quite excessive and would have a crushing effect on the Accused/Appellant. The Accused should be given an opportunity to mend his ways and to ‘turn over a new leaf’ upon his early release from prison. Further, too long in prison will turn him into a violent and hardened criminal and it would be very difficult for him to adjust himself into the society upon release. The problem will be further aggravated when society themselves cannot accept him, as a hardened and violent criminal. In the upshot, this court, after considering the foregoing factors, allowed this appeal in part 15 whereby the sentences for the second and the third charge were to run concurrently, after completing the sentence for the first charge. [26] Further the Accused/Appellant had repented and regretted his wrong doing. This court was also of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed by this court had also reflected the public’s abhorrence to this type of crime. [27] The Accused/Appellant is still dissatisfied with this sentence and had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. [28] It is to be noted that rape under section 376(1) of the Penal Code carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment per charge. The court in Peilis Sami v. PP (supra) sentenced the Accused to 12 years imprisonment and 5 strokes of whipping. In the case of Riduan Mahmud v. PP [2015] 1 LNS 449, the Accused was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping. In Nelson Gunasegaram v. PP [2010] 3 CLJ 561, the Accused was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Other authorities seem to show an imprisonment of 14 years for the same offence. From the trend of sentencing, it can be seen that the sentences imposed were between 12 to 14 years imprisonment for each offence. Hence, the Accused/Appellant should consider himself fortunate that this court had imposed on him only a total of 20 years imprisonment for the 3 offences committed. 16 [29] This court was of the considered opinion that any lesser sentence should not be considered especially considering the fact that this is a very serious crime involving a very young victim. The Accused is a threat to society especially to women. Further rape is an experience which shakes the foundation of the lives of the victim especially young victims as in this case. This court views the Accused’s conduct as a person taking advantage of a defenceless youg girl who was supposed to be protected by the Accused/Appellant. [30] However this court will leave it to the wisdom of the Honorable Court of Appeal for determination.

(G) CONCLUSION [31] In the upshot, the appeal of the Accused/Appellant was allowed in part. The decision of the learned judge was set aside and substituted with an order that the sentence of the second charge and the third charge were to run concurrently after serving the sentence of the first charge. The order of 3 strokes of whipping for each offence was affirmed. To put it in another way, the total sentence to be served was 20 years imprisonment and 9 strokes of whipping. 17 Dated: 4 January 2019 (DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil Kuala Lumpur Counsel: For the Appellant/Accused: Mr. Rosmizan bin Sulaiman, Advocates & Solicitors, Tetuan Rosmizan & Co, Lot 23, Kampung Sungai Petai, 16800 Kelantan. For the Public Prosecutor/Respondent: Mrs. Nor Hamizah binti Ghazali, Public Prosecutor, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan