Meor Radzuan Bin Meor Abdul Salim v Pendakwaraya (42S-17-3/2017)

The Accused/Appellant was charged for raping her step daughter on 2 occasions i.e. in the middle of May 2015 and on 5/6/2015, an offence punishable under section 376(3) of the Penal Code.

The Accused/Appellant claimed trial but in midstream, after 3 witnesses had given their evidence, the Accused/Appellant, decided to change his plea. After the charge was read again, explained and 2 understood by the Accused, the Accused pleaded guilty. The nature and consequences of his plea was explained and understood by the Accused/Appellant who maintained his plea of guilty.

After the facts of the case were read, explained and admitted by the Accused/Appellant, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment from the date of his arrest and 10 strokes of whipping for each offence. The sentences were to run consecutively. Dissatisfied, the Accused/Appellant filed an appeal before this Court.

Upon hearing the appeal, this Court allowed the appeal of the Accused/Appellant in part, set aside the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and substituted it with 15 years imprisonment but maintained the order of 10 strokes of whipping for each offence. The sentences are to run concurrently.

Still dissatisfied, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. These are the Grounds of Judgment for the decision of this Court.

The charge against the Accused/Respondent was as follows: 3 “Pertuduhan Pertama Bahawa kamu pada pertengahan bulan 5 tahun 2015, jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi, di dalam sebuah rumah di alamat A17, Projek DiRaja 2, Jalan Beris Lalang, Pohon Nenasi, di dalam Jajahan Bachok, di dalam negeri Kelantan, telah melakukan rogol terhadap Ruhida bt Fauzi. No. KPT: 960114-03-5518 di mana hubungan kamu dengannya adalah tidak dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang hukum agama, adat atau kebiasaan untuk berkahwin dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 376(3) kanun keseksaan. Pertuduhan Kedua Bahawa kamu pada 5/6/2015, jam lebih kurang 4 petang, di dalam sebuah rumah di alamat A17, Projek DiRaja 2, Jalan Beris Lalang, Pohon Nenasi, di dalam Jajahan Bachok, di dalam negeri Kelantan, telah melakukan rogol terhadap Ruhida bt Fauzi, No. KPT: 9601 14-03- 5518 di mana hubungan kamu dengannya adalah tidak dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang hukum agama, adat atau kebiasaan untuk berkahwin dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 376(3) kanun keseksaan.” C. THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The brief facts of the case as tendered in the trial court and exhibited as P6 are reproduced below: 4

Pengadu dalam kes ini Ruhida Binti Fauzi (No. K/P: 960114-03- 5518) yang berlamat di Lot 98 Jalan Seneng, Kampung Alor Ganu, 16370 Bachok, Kelantan.

Pada 12/6/2016, pengadu telah membuat laporan polis sebagaimana Bachok Repot 2210/15 yang menyatakan bahawa beliau telah dirogol oleh bapa tiri beliau iaitu Meor Radzuan Bin Meor Abdul Salim (tertuduh) di semasa beliau berada di rumah beliau di alamat A17 Projek Diraja 2, Jalan Beris Lalang, Kampung Pohon Nenasi, 16070, Bachok, Kelantan. Kejadian rogol ini telah diceritakan kepada kakak beliau iaitu Siti Rosniati Binti Fauzi dan ibu saudara, Azizah Binti Ibrahim.

Siasatan kes telah dijalankan oleh Insp. Yusrizawati Binti Yusop, Pegawai Penyiasat Jenayah, IPD Bachok, Kelantan. Hasil siasatan yang dijalankan ke atas pengadu iaitu mangsa bagi kes ini, pengadu menyatakan bahawa pada pertengahan bulan 5 tahun 2015, jam lebih kurang 11.00 pagi, semasa pengadu berada di rumah bersama-sama tertuduh, pengadu telah ditarik masuk ke dalam bilik tidur tertuduh dan mengarahkan pengadu baring di atas toto yang dibentangkan di dalam bilik tidur berkenaan. Tertuduh telah membuka baju dan seluar pengadu dan pengadu telah dibaringkan dalam keadaan bogel di atas toto. Pengadu telah menangis dan menolak tertuduh tetapi tertuduh telah menutup mulut pengadu. Tertuduh telah memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan pengadu dan memancutkan air mani ke atas perut pengadu. Tertuduh telah 5 menggunakan kain basah yang diambil dalam mesin basuh untuk mengelap air mani tersebut. Setelah selesai, mangsa telah keluar dari bilik tidur berkenaan.

Seterusnya pengadu juga menyatakan bahawa beliau telah dirogol pada 5/6/2015 jam lebih kurang 4.00 petang di rumah yang sama. Pada masa kejadian, tiada orang lain di rumah selain pengadu dan juga tertuduh. Semasa pengadu berada di dalam bilik tidur beliau, tertuduh telah masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut dan menutup pintu bilik dengan rapat. Tertuduh telah menghampiri pengadu dan menyelak baju pengadu. Pada mulanya tertuduh telah meraba payudara pengadu dan kemudiannya telah menarik seluar pengadu dan memegang kemaluan pengadu. Tertuduh telah memasukkan jari beliau dan kemudiannya tertuduh telah naik ke atas pengadu dan memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan pengadu. Tertuduh telah memancutkan air mani ke atas perut pengadu dan seterusnya keluar dari bilik pengadu.

Siasatan lanjut mendapati tertuduh merupakan abah tiri pengadu dan telah berkahwin dengan ibu kandung pengadu, Jamilah Binti Derahim sejak 3/3/2007.

Pengadu telah dibawa ke HUSM Kubang Kerian, Kelantan untuk pemeriksaan lanjut. Hasil pemeriksaan yang dijalankan, terdapat kesan koyakan lama pada kedudukan jam 3, 6 dan 9 yang diakibatkan oleh objek tumpul. 6

Tangkapan telah dilakukan pada 3/10/2016, jam lebih kurang 10.35 malam di rumah yang beralamat A17 Projek Diraja 2, Jalan Beris Lalang, Kampung Pohon Nenasi, 16070 Bachok, Kelantan. Repot tangkapan sebagaimana Bachok Repot 3761/16.

Tertuduh telah dituduh di bawah seksyen 376(3) Kanun Keseksaan dan mengaku salah sebagaimana pertuduhan.” D. THE LAW ON APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE [8] 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. [9] 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 v Ling Leh Hoe (2015) 4 CLJ 869 viz: “[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; 7

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).” [10] 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. E. FINDINGS OF THE SESSIONS COURT [11] The Sessions Judge referred to the decision in the case of R vs. Ball [25 CR App R 164] which inter alia decided that public interest should be of paramount importance and should supersede the personal interest of the accused. [12] In sentencing the Accused/Appellant to 12 years imprisonment for each offence, from the date of arrest, the Sessions Judge took into consideration the public interest, the seriousness of the offence, that the and offence of incest was on the rise etc. 8 [13] The learned judge had also considered the personal interest of the Accused/Appellant such as that the Accused had pleaded guilty and said at page 16 of the Appeal Record: “Di samping itu juga, saya telah mengambil 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 Mil 549. Kebiasaanya, akuan bersalah adalah merupakan satu faktor peringanan saya pertimbangkan dalam memberikan hak kepada OKT agar hukuman dikurangkan. Namun, tidak semua akuan bersalah boleh diberikan keistimewaan tersebut dan dalam kes ini saya memilih untuk tidak memberikan pengurangan tersebut. (Sau Soo Kim v. PP [1975] 1 LNS 158; [1975] 2 MU 134.” [14] The Session judge also said the following: “Saya juga berpendapat bahawa dengan peningkatan jumlah statistik bagi kes-kes sumbang mahram seperti yang dilaporkan oleh media setiap hari terutamanya di negeri Kelantan memerlukan satu hukuman yang bersifat pembalasan (retribution) dan pencegahan 9 perlu diberikan. Pengurangan atau hukuman yang minima adalah tidak setimpal untuk diberikan. Dalam kes ini, OKT merupakan seorang bapa tiri yang dipertanggungjawabkan dan diamanahkan untuk menjaga anak-anak iaitu mangsa. OKT telah gagal untuk menjalankan amanah malah telah merosakkan mangsa yang masih di bawah umur dengan melakukan jenayah sumbang mahram. Selain itu juga, hukuman yang dikenakan ini boleh dan mampu memberikan pencegahan kepada bakal-bakal pesalah yang lain. Saya juga turut mengambil kira faktor kekerapan jenayah sebegini di negeri Kelantan dan saya mengambil pendekatan bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan yang lama adalah paling sesuai bagi jenayah yang dilakukan oleh OKT bagi menyampaikan satu mesej pencegahan kepada masyarakat umumnya.” F. FINDING OF THIS COURT [15] 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. [16] 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/Respondent. 10 However, the personal interest of the Accused should not be ignored as the court has the duty to consider it as well. [17] Hence, this court did not disregard the rights of the Accused 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. [18] 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 Choo Fatt (supra) who said: “The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living”. [19] 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, and he had been supporting the family including the victim all this while. The Learned Judge had imposed a cumulative sentence of 24 years imprisonment in total and 20 strokes of whipping for both offences. 11 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 sentence of 15 years imprisonment and 10 whippings for each offence and to run concurrently from the date of arrest. [20] This court had also 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 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 Vs Ravindran and Others (1992) 1 LNS 47] and Sau Soon Kim Vs PP (1975) 2 MLJ 134]. [21] This court had also considered that the Accused/Appellant was a first offender and this factor should be considered in favour of the Accused. Admittedly this factor had also to be considered with other relevant factors based on the facts and circumstances of this case. Concurrent or consecutive sentence? [22] The trial court had imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment with 10 strokes of whipping for each offence, and that the sentences were to run consecutively. After hearing submissions from both parties, this court had substituted the sentences to 15 years imprisonment for each offence and 12 the 10 strokes of whipping for each offence was affirmed. However this court had ordered the sentences to run concurrently. [23] 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)]. [24] 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]. [25] 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. [26] 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 13 was continuity of action since both offences were clearly connected by proximity of time and place. Thus the sentences should run concurrently. [27] In Ayob Abdul Jabar v PP, the accused was charged with an offence of resisting lawful apprehension under s 224 of the Penal Code and four charges of house-breaking under s 457 of the Penal Code. Here the trial court ordered that the sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively, a total of 17 years, and the accused had to pay a fine of RM12,000. On appeal to the High Court, Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J upheld the trial court's order and held that: “Each distinct offence must be dealt with separately when imposing sentence. Offences in respect of infringements of the same section of a particular law must be regarded as distinct if the offences were committed against different persons or at different times or at different places. In the instant appeal, each of the five offences was committed at a different date, time, place and upon different persons. Thus, the offences committed are distinct offences and further, each offence is a principal offence. In these circumstances, the sentence imposed in respect of each offence cannot be concurrent with one another.” [28] 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 14 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 respectively under section 3 of the Arms Act 1960, i.e. a total of 18 years of imprisonment. [29] 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). [30] 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. [31] Reverting back to the case at hand, in the light of the authorities alluded to earlier, this court was of the considered opinion that the one transaction principle should be applied. This was because the offence committed was the same i.e. incest/rape committed at the same place i.e. at the same house on the same victim. [32] Further, even though the offence committed was not on the same day, it was quite proximate between the 2 occasions – a gap of 20 days only [see the case of PP V Ooi Teng Chiang (2006) 2 AMR 136)]. [33] This court noted that the Accused will have to be whipped with the mandatory 20 strokes for both offences, apart from undergoing the 15 15 years imprisonment. This court was of the considered opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by this court was fair and safe. If this court were to affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court, the Accused would have to undergo an imprisonment of 24 years, apart from the mandatory 20 strokes of whipping. [34] To this, this court was of the considered opinion that this would be quite excessive and would have a crushing effect on him. 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 itself cannot accept him, as a hardened and violent criminal. [35] Further the Accused/Appellant had repented and regretted his wrong doing. This court also was of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed had also reflected the public’s abhorrence to this type of crime. G. CONCLUSION [36] 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 15 years imprisonment for each offence from the date of arrest, and to run concurrently. The order of 10 strokes of whipping each for both offences was affirmed. To put it in another way, the total sentence to be served was 15 years imprisonment and 20 strokes of whipping. 16 Order accordingly, Dated: 28th February 2018 (DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE) Judicial Commissioner Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu Kelantan Pendakwa Raya/ TPR Puan Hajarul Faleena, Responden: Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan Peguamcara/Perayu: Tuan Haji Shaharuddin bin Mohamed Tetuan Saharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz, No. 5578-E, Lot 347, Tingkat Satu, Wisma SHM, Seksyen 23, Taman Desa Telipot, 15150 Kota Bharu, Kelantan.