Khalid Redza Bin Shuib (NA-45B-7-10/2023)

The accused pleaded guilty to each reduced charge and was sentenced to imprisonment. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run consecutively.

The accused was not satisfied with the decision and appealed against sentence. The charge [4] The alternative charge in its original language in respect of each case, read as follows: Case No. 7 Criminal Trial No. NA – 45B – 7 – 10/2023 (“Case No. 7”) “Bahawa kamu pada 14.03.2022 jam lebih kurang 9:00 malam hingga 17.03.2022 jam lebih kurang 4:36 pagi di alamat No. 518-1, Jalan Temiang, Taman Nee Yan, Seremban di dalam daerah Seremban, di dalam Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus telah menyebabkan kematian ke atas Meriammah Abdullah Basam (No. K/P: 931223 – 13 – 6040) dengan niat menyebabkan kecederaan tubuh badan yang mungkin menyebabkan kematian. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan mematikan orang dengan salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan.”. Case No. 4 Criminal Trial No. NA – 45B – 4 – 06/2023 (“Case No. 4”) “Bahawa kamu pada 03.03.2022 jam lebih kurang 7:00 malam di No. 518-1, Jalan Temiang, Taman Nee Yan, Seremban di dalam daerah Seremban, di dalam Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus telah menyebabkan kematian ke atas Hanan binti Hasrul Izwan (No. K/P: 170503 – 05 – 0416) dengan niat menyebabkan kecederaan tubuh badan yang mungkin menyebabkan kematian. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan mematikan orang dengan salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan.” Brief facts Discovery of the first body – Meriammah (Case No. 7) [5] On the morning of 20.03.2022, one Pang Chim Chiong (“Mr. Pang”) went out for hiking at Gunung Putus at Jalan Kuala Pilah. He was accompanied by his wife and daughter. They started the hike at Gunung Angsi.

At the vicinity of Gunung Angsi, there are three pondok or shelter. Mr. Pang’s parked his trusty 4WD Daihatsu Rocky at the third pondok. After parking his 4WD, the family of three began the hike. It was a bright morning and the weather was not too hot.

As he made his way towards the second pondok from the third pondok, Mr. Pang noticed a whiff of a foul stench carried by the soft morning breeze. At first, Mr. Pang simply ignored it and went on with 4 his hike. But as he came around the same route the second time, the same foul smell kept piercing his nose.

The overwhelming odour piqued his curiosity and kept him wondering. He then searched and trekked his way through the undergrowth towards the direction of the smell in an endeavour to uncover its cause.

As he inched down and looked towards the direction of the smell, Mr. Pang noticed a silhouette of a dark object resembling a body which appeared to face upwards at a distance of about 5 to 6 meters in a gorge. Mr. Pang then reported the matter to the forest ranger and later showed the forest ranger the exact location of the dark object he saw. Mr. Pang then left and later lodged a police report.

The forest ranger proceeded to approach the spot showed by Mr. Pang and there, he discovered the decomposed body of a female lying face down.

Two days later, police received information from a young lady named Nurshafwani. Nurshafwani is the accused’s daughter. According to Nurshafwani, the decomposed body of the female found at the gorge was “Meriam”, her father’s girlfriend. Nurshafwani related how the accused frequently hit “Meriam” when “Meriam” was at their home and how she was asked by the accused to go together with the accused to the gorge to dispose of the body in the early morning of 17.03.2022.

A post-mortem was conducted but the cause of death was undeterminable due to the decomposed state of the body. Discovery of the second body – Hanan (Case No. 4) [13] On the same day at almost 9:00pm, the accused led the police party to a house at 518-1, Jalan Temiang, Taman Nee Yan, Seremban. Nothing incriminating was found there.

A week later, the accused disclosed in investigation that he had a female child named “Hanan” buried at a dense scrub behind a container cabin at Temiang. Based on that information, on 07.04.2022 the police party made their way to a spot near Taman Zamrud, Seremban. There, they started digging and found a skull, a jawbone, a clavicle and 14 rib bones in a clod of soil all drenched in an unbearable stench.

Upon forensic examination, the cause of death was undetermined. The dental analysis showed the skeleton to be a child of between 5.5 to 10 years of age.

According to Nurshafwani, the skeleton was that of “Hanan”. “Hanan” was frequently hurt and abused by the accused and was buried by the accused and his girlfriend. The plea of guilty [17] The respective alternative charge under section 304(a) of the Penal Code was read over and explained to the accused. For Case No. 4, the accused pleaded guilty to the alternative charge. For Case No. 7, the accused also pleaded guilty. For each case, the accused admitted to the facts and exhibits tendered by the prosecution.

I proceeded to ascertain whether the accused understood the respective alternative charge that was proffered against him for each case and the consequence of him pleading guilty to the alternative charge. This process was carefully done for each case separately.

After having satisfied myself that the accused understood the charge, that the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea of guilty and intended to admit to the alternative charge without qualification, I accepted his plea of guilty and convicted him accordingly for each case. The mitigation [20] In mitigation, the learned counsel for the accused pleaded for leniency and advanced the following factors in favour of his client:

that the accused is 44 years of age,

that the accused is remorseful,

that the accused regretted the fact that his own daughter was implicated in the offence,

that his plea of guilty had saved judicial time and costs. The learned counsel adopted the same mitigation for both cases. The aggravation [21] In seeking for an appropriate sentence, the learned DPP submitted—

that the accused had taken the life of a young woman whom should instead be protected by the accused since the deceased was with him at the material time,

that death of a human being should not be taken lightly,

that the offence should be met with a lengthy custodial sentence to serve as a warning to would-be offenders and to serve the greater interest of the public as distinguished from the interest of the accused,

that during his lifetime, the deceased child was placed under the care of the accused,

that the deceased child was helpless against the brutal act of the deceased,

that the deceased went further in disposing of the body of the deceased child by burying the body in an unmarked grave. The victim impact statement [22] Before sentence was passed, the learned DPP informed this Court of two separate requests from the respective family member of each victim, pursuant to section 183A of the Criminal Procedure Code, to make a statement on the impact of the offence on the family. I allowed both requests. Case No. 7 [23] The victim impact statement for Case No. 7 was provided by the deceased’s younger brother, Ahmad Rozelan bin Selawi (“Ahmad Rozelan”). Ahmad Rozelan was closest to the deceased. After the incident, he fell sick, was under depression and suffered from prolonged insomnia. He was constantly wretched and this had greatly affected his performance at work. Case No. 4 [24] The victim impact statement for Case No. 4 was provided by the deceased’s own mother, Siti Syarifah binti Aibiddin (“Siti Syarifah”). Siti Syarifah narrated how she had cared for her doting late daughter. The late Hanan was autism and needed her constant help and guidance. Siti Syarifah took care of her daughter all by herself. After the passing of her daughter, she could see glimpses of the late Hanan running towards her. Although the late Hanan was speech-impaired and Siti Syarifah had never heard her speak, she felt as though she could hear the late Hanan scream in pain from being beaten. It was hard and painful for Siti Syarifah but she had to soldier on for her other children. Siti Syarifah said she kept to herself for a long time and could not let her emotions out because not everyone would be able to understand the trauma she had gone through. She missed the late Hanan so much. The sentence [25] After considering the submissions from the learned counsel and the learned DPP, and considering the respective victim impact statements, I sentenced the accused as follows:

for Case No. 7, I sentenced the accused to 15 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest, and

for Case No. 4, the accused is sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment commencing after completion of the sentence for Case No. 7. [26] I ordered both sentences to run consecutively. Sentence according to law [27] Once an accused is convicted, the court shall pass sentence according to law. This is provided for under section 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A sentence according to law means more than just a sentence which is within the permissible penalty. It must be a sentence that is meted out after considering settled principles. (See: PP v. Jafa Daud [1981] CLJU 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315). Plea of guilty [28] A plea of guilty operates as a mitigating factor (See: Sau Soo Kim v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 134 FC; Mohd Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. Public Prosecutor [1987] 2 CLJ 405 SC). That is the trite principle which even a hardened criminal is entitled for. [29] In appropriate cases where public interest demands outweigh the mitigating factors, the court may refuse to allow a discount on the term of sentence which would otherwise have been imposed. (See: Public Prosecutor v. Oo Leng Swee & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 247 FC). [30] In the present case, the trial against the accused had proceeded on the two original charges under section 302 of the Penal Code. After the first witness completed his evidence, the accused had a change of mind and pleaded guilty to alternative charges under section 304(a) of the Penal Code for each case. This followed from a written representation made by the accused which was considered and agreed by the Public Prosecutor. [31] In cases where the charge is reduced to a lesser offence and the accused accordingly pleaded guilty – all this pursuant to a written representation made by the accused as accepted by the Public Prosecutor, the weight of the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor must be lesser compared to a case where the accused pleads guilty to an original charge without any written representation, unless the extenuating circumstances strongly leans in favour of the accused. Nature of the offence [32] In Case No. 7, the victim was a female of 29 years old. From the narrated facts, the daughter of the accused bear witness against his own father of the fact that the deceased was a victim of physical abuse by the accused. The accused has also got her daughter involved in disposing of the body in the gorge at Jalan Bukit Putus Lama. The body of the deceased was only discovered after it had decomposed. [33] In Case No. 4, the victim was a 5-year old child who had autism. The facts of the case demonstrated that the deceased child too was a victim of physical abuse by the accused. With the help of her girlfriend, the accused buried the deceased child in an unmarked grave behind a container cabin at a dense underbrush. [34] In each case, the facts showed that the accused was not a person capable of humanely compassion. In each case, the accused even hid the body to avoid detection. Although there were no means to describe how each murder was executed as both the bodies were in a decomposed state incapable of forensic analysis, the fact that both the deceased victims were of the weaker gender speaks volume of the character of the accused. Further, the fact that the accused was reportedly physically abusive against both the deceased victims gave rise to a highly strong factual inference of violence on the part of the accused. Public interest [35] Public interest is an important consideration in sentencing. In deserving cases, public interest considerations even override a strong mitigation plea. (See: Iwan Bujang Dara v. Public Prosecutor [2017] 3 MLJ 630 CA). [36] Aggravating factors are not mere appendages. They must be appropriately reflected and proportionately manifested in the sentence eventually meted out. The court is under a duty to display its abhorrence to crimes of violence and send out a clear warning to would-be offenders that none would be treated lightly. In the absence of good mitigating factors, mere perfunctory formality lacking in substantive persuasion for mitigating a sentence may not earn an accused anything considerable in his favour. Crime against children [37] Crime against children are rampant. Most went unreported. Various laws have been enacted to accord children with better protection mechanism and we must recognise the need to protect the most vulnerable and weak but important composition of the society. When violence is perpetrated against children, the whole society becomes incensed. [38] The imposition of appropriate punishment for crimes committed against children must be seen to be done. It is only through a consistent and stringent imposition of punishment that a small piece of justice for the harmed children may be served. Sentencing trend [39] The trend of sentencing for cases under section 304(a) of the Penal Code is between 15 to 20 years of imprisonment. This is borne by the following strand of cases: No.

PP v. Tegoh Aling [2007] 10 CLJ 619 12 years 2. Kesavan Baskaran v. PP [2008] 2 MLRA 213 18 years 3. PP v. Kandasan Sankaran [2009] 3 MLRA 149 17 years 4. PP v. Karthiselvan Vengatan [2009] 1 MLRA 702 20 years 5. PP v. Ramakrishnan Subramaniam [2012] 9 CLJ 443 18 years 15 years 6. PP v. Rajandran Sanashi [2018] CLJU 1468 15 years 7. PP v. Baharin Md. Derus [2018] CLJU 1265 12 years 8. Pubalan v. PP [2020] 8 CLJ 306 15 years Concurrent sentence [40] The court is given the discretion whether to order the sentence to run concurrently or consecutively. The exercise of this discretion is facts-dependent and guided by the one transaction rule and totality principle. (See: Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572 CA). [41] In considering the one transaction rule, the test to be applied is the four elements test, namely proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design. (See: Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1979] 2 MLJ 88). In the absence of evidence to support the one transaction rule, the sentence should be consecutive. [42] In the present case, there was no nexus between Case No. 7 and Case No. 4. The four elements test were not present and as such, a discretion should be exercised in favour of an order for the sentence to run consecutively. Conclusion [43] On the premise of these reasons, I sentenced the accused as follows:

for Case No. 7, the accused is sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment from the date of arrest,

for Case No. 4, the accused is sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment commencing after completion of the sentence for Case No. 7,

the sentence shall run consecutively. Dated 3 December 2025 AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SEREMBAN For the Appellant : Khalid Redza bin Shuib For the Respondent :