Mohamad Faiz Haikal Mohd Azrai (AA-62JSK-65-08/2024)

Notis Rayuan bertarikh 30.10.2024 telah difailkan oleh Pendakwa Raya kerana tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini pada 24.10.2024 di mana Tertuduh setelah didapati salah dan disabitkan di atas Pertuduhan dibawah Seksyen 376 (1) Kanun Keseksaan telah dijatuhkan hukuman dibawah Akta Perintah Kehadiran Wajib 1954 (Akta 461) dan diperintahkan untuk hadir 1 jam sehari selama 12 bulan di Pusat yang dinyatakan dalam Perintah tersebut untuk menjalankan kerja wajib selama tempoh tersebut.

Pada 28 Ogos 2024 (hari pertama Tertuduh dibawa ke mahkamah), selepas Pertuduhan seperti berikut dibacakan kepada Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah mengaku salah terhadap Pertuduhan tersebut, faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan dan telah mengaku salah tanpa syarat: “BAHAWA KAMU PADA 24 OGOS 2024 JAM LEBIH KURANG 4.00 PETANG DI TINGKAT ATAS RUANG TAMU RUMAH TIDAK BERNOMBOR BERALAMAT JLN BOTA, KG BARU PULAU TIGA, 36800 KG GAJAH PERAK DI DALAM DAERAH PERAK TENGAH, DI DALAM NEGERI PERAK TELAH MEROGOL NORHAFIEZATUL ADAWIYAH BINTI MOHAMAD RAMZI, KPT: 090424120156 YANG PADA WAKTU ITU BERUMUR 15 TAHUN, DAN DENGAN ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SUATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 376 (1) KANUN KESEKSAAN.” HUKUMAN HENDAKLAH DIHUKUM DENGAN PEMENJARAAN SELAMA TEMPOH YANG BOLEH SAMPAI DUA PULUH TAHUN, DAN HENDAKLAH JUGA DIHUKUM DENGAN SEBATAN. HUKUMAN PEMERHATIAN POLIS DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 295(1A) KANUN PROSEDUR JENAYAH MAHKAMAH HENDAKLAH MENGARAHKAN PENGAWASAN POLIS BAGI SUATU TEMPOH YANG TIDAK KURANG DARI 1 TAHUN DAN TIDAK LEBIH DARI 3 TAHUN BERMULA SERTA-MERTA SELEPAS TAMAT HUKUMAN YANG DIKENAKAN KE ATASNYA.

Pihak pendakwaan seterusnya telah memohon arahan mahkamah sama ada laporan sosial diperlukan memandangkan Tertuduh berumur 19 tahun semasa kejadian berlaku, maka Mahkamah telah memberikan satu tarikh baru untuk laporan sosial dikemukakan oleh Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat.

Pada 24.10.2024, pertuduhan seperti diatas telah dibacakan semula kepada Tertuduh dimana Tertuduh telah sekali lagi mengaku salah terhadap Pertuduhan tersebut, faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan dan telah mengaku tanpa syarat. Pihak pendakwaan seterusnya telah mengemukakan pelbagai exhibit antara lain: Fakta Kes (P1) yang dibacakan kepada Tertuduh dan diakui benar oleh Tertuduh, Kg Gajah Rpt 1785/24 (P2) iaitu laporan polis yang dibuat oleh pengadu/mangsa, Kg Gajah Rpt 1787/24 (P4), dan Laporan Perubatan (P12). Kesemua exhibit yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan telah ditunjukkan kepada Tertuduh dan diakui.

Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh telah mengaku kepada pertuduhan yang dibacakan semula, faham sifat akibat pengakuan dan telah mengaku 4 tanpa syarat, telah mengaku kepada fakta kes yang dibaca serta kesemua eksibit yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Maka Mahkamah mendapati pengakuan salah Tertuduh adalah teratur (Lee Weng Tuck &; Anor V. Public Prosecutor [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 75, Rex v. Tan Thian Chai & Anor. [1931] 1 LNS 27. [1932] MLJ 74 dan Koh Mui Keow v. R [1952] 1 LNS 46[1952] MLJ 214).

Dalam mempertimbangkan satu hukuman yang wajar terhadap Tertuduh, Mahkamah terikat dengan prinsip sepertimana dijelaskan oleh Mohamed Azmi SCJ dalam kes Supreme Court Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang lwn Pendakwa Raya [1987] 2 CLJ 405; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 209 di m/s 214: “In assessing the length of custodial sentence, the court must look at the overall picture in perspective by considering, firstly, the gravity of the type of offence committed; secondly, the facts in the commission of the offence; thirdly, the presence or absence of mitigating factors, and, fourthly, the sentences that have been imposed in the past for similar offences to determine the trend of sentencing policy, if any. The fact that a sentence of imprisonment is imposed as deterrence does not justify the sentencer in passing a sentence of greater length than what the facts of the offence warrant ... A sentencer must give sufficient discount for all extenuating circumstances pertaining to the degree of culpability or criminality involved, which must necessarily vary from case to case apart from other mitigating factors. Unless there is a proper reason for withholding such credits, failure to do so may result in the sentencer not exercising his or her discretion judicially in assessing the level of custodial sentence.” dan juga prinsip dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan PP v. Morah Chekwube Chukwudi [2017] CLJU 864; [2017] 1 LNS 864; [2017] MLJU 958; [2017] MLRAU 276 yang memutuskan seperti berikut:- "Jurisprudence relating to sentence [5] It is well established that there are a number of factors that courts take into consideration before sentencing. Some of them are as follows: (a) the gravity or severity of the facts constituting the offence; (b) the circumstances in which it was committed; (c) the rampancy of such offence in the area; (d) the offender's previous record; (e) the offender's contribution and support to his family members; (f) the offenders means; (g) the effect of conviction and sentence on his job opportunities; (h) the age and health of the accused; (i) whether it is his first offence; (j) whether the accused had cooperated with the police after the commission of the offence; (k) whether the accused had pleaded guilty; (i) status of the accused; (m) whether there was violence during the crime; (n) public interest, etc.

All these factors where applicable need to be addressed by the defence to secure a just sentence. It is equally important for the prosecution to rebut the facts adduced by the accused if they are not bona fide, as ultimately the power to sentence is placed on the trial judge and the judge had to rely on the facts adduced in court..." Selain itu dalam kes ini Mahkamah juga berpendapat, pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh ‘at the first instance’ telah menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak yang terlibat di dalam kes ini dan perkara ini juga telah pun diberi pertimbangan sebelum hukuman dikenakan (Sau Soo Kim [1975] 2 MLJ 134, Melvani v. PP [1971] 1 MLJ 137; PP v. Sulaiman bin Ahmad [1993] 1 MLJ 74, PP v. Ravindran & Ors [1993] 1 MLJ 45, PP v. Jesicca Lim Lu Ping & Anor [2004] 2 CLJ 763)

Tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa jenayah rogol, adalah suatu jenayah yang amat keji apatah lagi bila dilakukan terhadap kanak-kanak di bawah umur dimana gejala ini amat berleluasa pada masa kini. Kepentingan masyarakat sememangnya perlu dijaga dengan hukuman yang mencerminkan keseriusan kesalahan rogol tersebut. Namun demikian, setiap kes haruslah dipertimbangkan atas faktanya tersendiri 7 dan hukuman penjara bukanlah suatu penyelesaian atau pencegahan yang wajar untuk semua kes rogol; sepertimana telah diputuskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Nor Afizal Azizan v. PP [2012] 6 CLJ 370; oleh YAA Raus Sharif PCA:

As stated earlier, the learned JC in substituting the sentence with five years imprisonment was concerned that cases of statutory Rape involving teenagers are common occurrence. According to him, if a light sentence is imposed, it will not have a deterrent effect in combating Crime of this nature. We are equally concerned, especially in this case where the victim at the time of the offence was only 13 years and 4 months of age. But the appellant was not very much older than the victim. Both were teenagers. They both made a mistake in engaging in premarital sex. No doubt, the appellant had committed an offence, but should custodial sentence be the only safeguard into ensuring similar offences of consensual sex among teenagers will not happen?

In this aspect we are inclined to agree with what was expressed by Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC (as he then was) in PP v. Mohamad Arfah Jasmi [2008] 7 CLJ 836 that the safeguard into ensuring similar offences of consensual sex among teenagers will not happen, starts at home and in school. At home where parents should impose discipline and religious knowledge to ensure that teenagers would not put themselves in situations which will bring about this kind of offence and in school where sex education can be taught so that both girls and boys are aware of the dire consequences of engaging in premarital sex.

The next question is: must all these teenagers who commit similar offence as the appellant be punished with imprisonment? It is a well accepted principle of sentencing that young offenders, wherever possible and depending on the nature of the offences committed, should be kept out of prison, especially when there are other adequate means of dealing with them. Bellamy J in Tukiran Taib v. PP [1955] CLJU 166; [1955] 1 LNS 166, held that: It is desirable that young offenders, that is, offenders between the ages of 17 and 21, who are also first offenders should be kept out of prison, if possible. The pronouncement made by Bellamy J in Tukiran Taib v. Public Prosecutor (supra), albeit made in 1955 has become the guiding principle for courts in exercising its discretion when assessing the appropriate sentence for young offenders. There is a plethora of authorities stemming from our courts against sending young and/or first offenders to the prison. (see Teoh Ah Kow v. PP [1960] CLJU 140; [1960] 1 LNS 140; PP v. Tan King Hua [1965] CLJU 141; [1965] 1 LNS 141; Lim Yoon Fah v. PP [1970] CLJU 66; [1970] 1 LNS 66; PP v. Yeong Yin Choy [1976] CLJU 119; [1976] 1 LNS 119; Teo Siew Peng & Ors v. PP [1984] CLJU 71; [1984] 1 LNS 71; PP v. Mohamed Nor & Ors [1985] CLJU 25; [1985] 1 LNS 25; PP v. Lim Hong Chin [1994] 1 CLJ 79 and Lai Sing Ming v. PP [1995] CLJU 106; [1995] 1 LNS 106; and Winston Rajah v. PP [1998] CLJU 54; [1998] 1 LNS 54.

In the instant appeal, the appellant is not only a young offender, but also a first offender and considering the nature of the offence and how it was committed and the other extenuating circumstances, the learned SCJ was right 9 in exercising his discretion in not sentencing the appellant to prison but instead subjected him to an order under s. 294 of the CPC. … [23] For completeness, we would like to add a proviso to our decision: that whatever sentence to be imposed on this type of cases must be based on the facts of each individual case. Each case depends on its own facts and it is neither feasible nor desirable to attempt to lay down any fixed sentence that is meant to govern this type of cases. Therefore, these observations made by this court should not be misconstrued as intending to have blanket application or applying to all cases involving young offenders charged with the similar offence as the appellant herein.

In the present case, if the appellant had been older, or he had used force, coercion or violence on the victim, or he had tricked the victim into submitting to him or he had not cooperated with the police and he had not shown any remorse to his act or there is no guarantee that he will not be committing the same offence in the future, we would not have any hesitation, as we have done in many other cases of similar nature, to impose a lengthy custodial sentence. But before us is a young boy who was extremely remorseful for what he had done and had thrown himself to the mercy of the court by pleading guilty to the charge. FAKTA KES, RAYUAN MITIGASI DAN HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN

Pada pemikiran Mahkamah, rayuan ini difailkan sebab TPR tidak berpuas hati atas perintah Mahkamah untuk Tertuduh diambil tindakan 10 dibawah Akta Perintah Kehadiran Wajib 1954 (Akta 461) dan bukannya ditempatkan di Sekolah Henry Gurney sepertimana disyorkan dalam Laporan Sosial Pesalah Muda (Lampiran A) memandangkan TPR sendiri dalam hujahan pemberatan telah bersetuju dengan cadangan yang dikemukakan dalam Lampiran A untuk menghantar Tertuduh ke Sekolah Henry Gurney.

Mahkamah telah mempertimbangkan beberapa faktor sebelum memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh diambil tindakan dibawah Akta Perintah Kehadiran Wajib 1954 (Akta 461) dimana Tertuduh perlu hadirkan diri ke Pusat Kehadiran Wajib Daerah Manjung dan bukan sebaliknya dihantar ke Sekolah Henry Gurney. Faktor-faktor pertimbangan Mahkamah ini kebanyakkannya adalah hasil sumbangan Laporan Sosial Pesalah Muda (Lampiran A) yang disediakan Pegawai JKM Daerah Kinta, Pn. Sharifah Mashitah binti Syed Mansor itu sendiri, rayuan mitigasi Tertuduh dan juga hujahan pemberatan daripada TPR.

Dalam rayuan mitigasinya, Tertuduh telah menyatakan bahawa beliau sekarang berumur 19 tahun dan merupakan anak sulong daripada 3 adik beradik. Bapa Tertuduh telah ditangkap dan kini berada di penjara. Ibu Tertuduh telah pulang ke Sarawak membawa kedua-dua adik Tertuduh. Ibu Tertuduh tidak bekerja. Tertuduh bekerja kilang di Kg. Gajah 11 dengan pendapatan RM1,800.00 sebulan dimana Tertuduh menghantar sedikit duit tersebut untuk perbelanjaan adik-adiknya. Tertuduh telah memohon untuk tidak dipenjarakan dan diberi membuat kerja-kerja amal sahaja. Tertuduh juga berjanji tidak akan mengulangi kesalahan ini lagi. Selain itu Tertuduh juga memberitahu Mahkamah bahawa dia belajar sehingga Tingkatan namun tidak sempat untuk menduduki peperiksaan SPM.

Selepas mendengar rayuan mitigasi Tertuduh Mahkamah telah mendengar pembacaan Lampiran A. Antara lain Mahkamah telah mendapati dalam laporan sosial tersebut, telah dinyatakan seperti berikut: i. Bahawa selepas berpisah dengan bapa kandung Tertuduh, ibu kandung Tertuduh telah berkahwin semula pada tahun 2013 dan mempunyai 3 orang anak hasil perkahwinan kedua ini; ii. Keadaan ekonomi keluarga Tertuduh bergantung dengan pendapatan Tertuduh yang sebelum ini bekerja di kilang pembuatan wayar dengan pendapatan sebanyak RM 1200.00 sebulan. Tertuduh akan bekerja setiap hari Isnin hingga Jumaat bermula jam 8.00 hingga 6.00 petang. Disamping itu Tertuduh turut mengambil upah membaiki motosikal bersama abang angkatnya; 12 iii. Tertuduh ada masalah pembelajaran dan telah disarankan oleh pihak sekolah untuk didaftarkan sebagai OKU (masalah pembelajaran); iv.