Mohamad Zabir Harith Bin Bidin v Pendakwa Raya (JB-42JSKH-5-01/2025)

This is an appeal by the appellant against the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court Judge in Muar, where the appellant was convicted on 13 charges under five separate cases as follows: -

Case JB-42JSKH-2-01/2025 Pertuduhan Pertama: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Jun 2024 jam lebih kurang 01.00 pagi, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh kemaluan kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Kedua: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Jun 2024 jam lebih kurang 01.00 pagi, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah membuatkan kanak-kanak iaitu (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), menyentuh kemaluan kamu bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Ketiga: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Jun 2024 jam lebih kurang 01.00 pagi, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.”

Case JB-42JSKH-3-01/2025 Pertuduhan pertama: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Ogos 2024 jam lebih kurang 5.45 petang, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh kemaluan, punggung dan bibir kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Kedua: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Ogos 2024 jam lebih kurang 5.45 petang, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah membuatkan kanak-kanak iaitu (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), menyentuh kemaluan kamu bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Ketiga: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Ogos 2024 jam lebih kurang 5.45 petang, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan kamu bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.”

Case JB-42JSKH-4-01/2025 Pertuduhan pertama: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Mei 2024 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah memeluk badan kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Kedua: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Mei 2024 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan kamu bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Ketiga: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Mei 2024 jam lebih kurang 12.00 malam, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan kamu bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 7 14(d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.”

Case JB-42JSKH-5-01/2025 Pertuduhan Pertama: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Mac 2024 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh kemaluan, punggung dan bibir kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Kedua: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Mac 2024 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan kamu bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 8 14(d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.”

Case JB-42JSKH-6-01/2025 Pertuduhan Pertama: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Julai 2024 jam lebih kurang 11.00 malam, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan kamu, bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Kedua: “Bahawa kamu pada bulan Ogos 2024 jam lebih kurang 08.00 pagi, bertempat di bilik tidur kamu, asrama pondok pengajian Ahmadi, Lot 214, Kampung Parit Belahan Tampok, Rengit dalam Daerah Batu Pahat, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah menyentuh dubur kanak-kanak iaitu XXXXXX XXXXXX (KPT: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX), dengan menggunakan kemaluan kamu, bagi maksud seksual. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan Amang Seksual Fizikal di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.”

The Learned Sessions Court Judge sentenced the appellant to 4 years imprisonment and one stroke of whipping for each of the charge and the sentences were to run consequently for the five separate cases. In other words, the appellant was sentenced to a cumulative 20 years imprisonment and 13 strokes of the whipping, on the 13 charges under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017.

In this appeal, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed is excessive and that the Court should consider the one transaction rule and the totality principle in this case as the sentence will have a “crushing effect on the appellant”.

It is trite law that the Court has wide discretion in applying sentencing principles and the duration of the sentence may vary depending on the facts of the case and the circumstances from time to time, as established in the Federal Court case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake v Public Prosecutor (1982) 1 MLJ 83. Sentencing is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. Appellate intervention is warranted only where the sentence is manifestly excessive, wrong in principle or contrary to justice. An appellate court will not interfere in the trial judge’s exercise of sentencing discretion, unless it is shown that the judge had erred in principle, or that the sentence is either manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive. This principle was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Ling Leh Hoe (2015) MLJU 1006; (2015) 4 CLJ 869, where it was held that an appellate court in dealing with an appeal against sentence may only interfere in limited circumstances, where: a) The sentencing judge had made a wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for the sentence; b) There had been an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material facts placed before him; c) The sentence was wrong on principle; or d) The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Further it is an established practice that the appellate court will not alter a sentence merely because it might pass a different sentence. (See: PP v Mohamed Nor & Ors (1985) 2 MLJ 200 (SC); and Leong Ka Kong v PP (1976) 2 MLJ 21).

It is the finding of this court that the Learned Sessions Court Judge’s sentence should not be disturbed on the following grounds: a) The charges against the appellant are distinct in terms of time and the dates (varies from the month of March 2024 till August 2024) even though the victim was the same. That is the reason why there were five different cases against the appellant. For this reason, the one transaction rule would not apply here. As such the sentences for the five cases should run consecutively and not concurrently. As such, the single transaction principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Bachik Abdul Rahman v PP (2004) 2 CLJ 572 has no application. b) The sentence imposed by the trial Judge was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and was proportional to the commission of the act by the appellant on the victim which consist of 13 charges. Considering the alarming increase of sexual offences against children, deterrence had to be the sole aim. Sentence passed shall be deterrent to the appellant specifically so that he would not re-offend and likewise it had to be a clear message to would be offenders, to be deterred from committing such crimes. The appellant being an Ustaz in a religious school should not have committed the offences on children that he was trusted with. Concurrent sentence for all the offences will lead to inadequate sentence in the present case for the type of offences committed. The appellant will only need to serve 4 years of imprisonment if the concurrent sentence were to be given which is manifestly inadequate. c) The total of 20 years imprisonment will not have “crushing effect” and did not go against the totality principle because the maximum sentence that could be imposed for all the 13 offences was 260 years. The court must show its abhorrence to the rampancy of crimes of this nature and therefore a deterrent sentence was warranted. Under section 14 (a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Act 792) (“SOACA 2017”), Parliament has made it clear its abhorrence for such offences where it has legislated that a mere touching of any part of the body of a child or even with an object for sexual purposes commits an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and shall also be liable to whipping. Such abhorrence can also be seen in the provisions of section 25 of this Act where it is expressly provided that “Notwithstanding paragraph 289 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if a person convicted of any offence under this Act is a male whom the court considers to be more than fifty years of age, he may still be punishable with whipping.” d) The utmost factor to be taken into consideration is public interest. Circumstances that mitigate the crime such as hardship to the offender and family members it he were sent to long incarceration should not be given undue weight in assessing sentence. The severity of the offence herein out weights the needs and interest of the appellant particularly in regard to offences of a sexual nature such as in this case. The appellant only has himself to blame for that and he should live with the consequences of his own fault. He should have thought of the consequences before committing the offences and not after. (Case; Public Prosecutor v Teh Ah Cheng (1976) 2 MLJ 186). e) Based on the trend of sentencing for offences under the above SOACA 2017, the court is not persuaded that the sentence was imposed by the learned Sessions Court Judge is excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence. (See: Ibrahim Bin Mahd Nazri v PP (2024) 5

Premised on the above, the appellant’s appeal against the sentence is dismissed. Dated 4th November 2025 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TAK’ZIM For the Appellant : Syaffie bin Naim Tetuan M N Halim Syaffie & Associates For the Deputy Public Prosecutor : Nur Aqiilah binti