Mohammad Abul Kalam (DA-83RS-116-08/2025)

Pada 18.8.2025 , OKT dituduh di Mahkamah Majistret Kota Bharu dengan pertuduhan berikut: PERTUDUHAN: “Bahawa kamu pada 15.8.2025 lebih kurang 1126hrs bertempat di Pasaraya Mydin Tunjong di dalam daerah Kota Bharu di dalam negeri

Kelantan telah mencuri

Tong Gardn Pis

Salmon C

Udang SE

Electronic Lug

Pure White Gar

Tong Gardn Coc

Al-Shifa Honey

Cummin P Yelakai 10. Yelakai 11. Defrost 12.

Meat Cur 14. Yelakai 15. Ff Dgtl Luggag 16.

Unisex Cap Emb 18. Nivea Men Deo 19. Beauty & Cosme 20. Fogg Men Fanta 21. Skl Seal Tape 22. Gillette Mach (2pcs)

Men Dryfit 072 24. Bentop Men Shi 25. Boy Pant Long 26. B/Tul 540g Str 27. Serban Jcquard 28. Wadimor Pelika 29. Madimor Pelika Berharga RM 585.00 daripada milikan pasaraya Mydin Tunjong dalam bangunan yang digunakan sebagai tempat simpanan harta benda dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 380 Kanun Keseksaan Hukuman bagi Seksyen 380 Kanun Keseksaan Barang siapa melakukan kesalahan mencuri dalam mana-mana bangunan, khemah atau perahuan, iaitu bangunan khemah atau perahuan yang digunakan sebagai tempat kediaman manusia atau tempat simpanan harta benda hendaklah diseksa dengan penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai sepuluh tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan denda dan bagi kesalahan yang kedua atau yang kemudian bolehlah dikenakan penjara dan bolehlah juga dikenakan denda atau sebat

Pada 18.8.2025, OKT yang tidak diwakili telah mengaku salah terhadap pertuduhan, memahami sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah setelah pertuduhan dibacakan, diterangkan dan difahamkan semula kepada OKT dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah, intipati pertuduhan, hukuman yang diperuntukkan, kadar hukuman yang boleh dijatuhkan, kewajipan hukuman penjara yang boleh dijatuhkan untuk kesalahan tersebut serta fakta kes yang dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada OKT adalah straight forward dan tidak menunjukkan OKT tidak faham prosiding Mahkamah tersebut. Mahkamah ini berpuashati dan berpendapat bahawa OKT faham tanpa sebarang kekeliruan terhadap pertuduhan yang dihadapinya.

Dalam mengambil dan menerima pengakuan salah OKT dan seterusnya mensabitkan OKT dengan pertuduhan, Mahkamah ini telah mengikuti dan mematuhi panduan seperti digariskan dalam kes Lee Weng Tuck & Anor v PP [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 75: “[6] The safeguards for ensuring that a plea of guilty is valid and unequivocal are:

The Court must ensure that it is the accused himself who wishes to plead guilty;

The Court must ascertain that accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea; and

The Court must ascertain that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence against him.”

Fakta kes telah dibacakan, diterangkan dan difahamkan kepada OKT. OKT telah mengakui benar fakta kes. Fakta kes ditandakan sebagai eksibit P1.

Pihak Pendakwaan seterusnya mengemukakan eksibit-eksibit berikut: P2 laporan polis Kota Bharu 13160/25 P3 laporan polis Kota Bharu 13161/25 P4 laporan polis Kota Bharu 13169/25 P5 A-H gambar tempat kejadian 8 keping P6 gambar barang kes P7 gambar tangkap layar rakaman CCTV P8 perakuan 90A Akta Keterangan P9 satu CD rakaman CCTV tempat kejadian

OKT telah mengakui benar P2 sehingga P9.

Dalam kes ini, pertuduhan telah dibaca dan diterangkan kepada OKT. OKT sendiri telah mengaku bersalah terhadap Pertuduhan tersebut. OKT juga telah mengakui benar fakta kes yang dibacakan dan diterangkan di Mahkamah. OKT juga telah mengakui benar kesemua eksibit yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Maka kesemua hal ini dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa pengakuan salah OKT di sepanjang prosiding Mahkamah adalah teratur, tidak bersyarat dan mengikut prosedur yang telah ditetapkan.

Seterusnya, OKT dibantu soalan dari Mahkamah ini dalam memohon pertimbangan peringanan hukuman berhujah bahawa OKT berumur 43 tahun,berkahwin dan menanggung isteri dan dua anak umur 12 tahun dan 9 tahun, bekerja sebagai buruh kasar membancuh simen dan pendapatan dalam RM 1500 sebulan. OKT memohon hukuman minima atas kesalahan.

Pendakwaan pula memohon hukuman setimpal atas kesalahan dan sebagai pengajaran kepada OKT untuk tidak ulangi kesalahan di masa hadapan.

Mahkamah telah menimbangkan rayuan OKT dan juga pemberatan hukuman oleh Pendakwaan. OKT telah mengaku salah dan pengakuan salah OKT sememangnya menjimatkan masa serta kos semua pihak. Walaubagaimanapun, pengurangan hukuman atau diskaun tersebut bukanlah sesuatu yang automatik memandangkan hukuman bagi sesuatu kesalahan itu masih atas budibicara Mahkamah yang mendengar pertuduhannya setelah menilai keseriusan kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan serta faktor-faktor lain yang menjadi aras pertimbangannya.

Dalam mempertimbangkan pengakuan salah sebagai faktor peringanan hukuman, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Bachik Abdul Rahman v PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572, Hakim Augustine Paul telah menyatakan, antara lain: " The circumstances in which a guilty plea will not have any weight are varied. The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea…. Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of a guilty plea must also give way…. A guilty plea cannot also be a powerful mitigating factor when effectively no defence to the charge is available to the accused …. If a plea of guilty is made too late in the trial it may also cease to have mitigating effect …. The absence of mitigating factors in favour of the accused like, for instance, the existence of previous convictions may also deprive the guilty plea of its effect. There can therefore be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment …. Be that as it may, where there is a departure from the general rule the reason for not treating the guilty plea as a mitigating factor must be reflected in the grounds of judgment …. In the light of the law that we have adverted to what requires consideration is whether in the circumstances of this case the guilty plea of accused ought to have been treated as a mitigating factor in his favour and, if it is not to be so, whether the Sessions Court was aware of it. The relevant part of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court Judge that we have reproduced earlier makes it patently clear that in imposing sentence he had taken into consideration the seriousness of the offence against the background of the physical weakness and age of the victim; the element of public interest to be served; the effect of the crime on the victim; the previous sentence being served by the accused; and the need to protect society from persons like him. We interpolate to add that the sentence that the accused was then serving in respect of a conviction for an offence committed subsequent to the current offence and convicted earlier will rank as a previous conviction. In this regard we refer to Sim Yeow Seng v. PP [1995] 3 SLR 44 where Yong Pung How CJ sitting in the High Court said at p 47:- The rationale of PP v. Boon Kiah Kin [1993] 3 SLR 639 and, indeed, Lowe J's judgment in R v. Wilson [1965] VLR 199 is that a sentencing court should have regard to all of the accused's antecedents up to the moment of sentencing because these antecedents reveal his character, his attitudes and the likelihood of rehabilitation. So long as previous convictions are shown to exist, therefore, it does not matter whether they were in respect of offences committed before or subsequent to the offence for which the court is considering sentence.".

Selain itu, kepentingan awam adalah salah satu prinsip penghukuman yang sangat penting di dalam kes-kes jenayah secara umum. Mahkamah sering dingatkan supaya memberi penekanan yang berat dan mengambil kira faktor ini dengan sewajarnya sebelum menjatuhkan sesuatu hukuman. Rujukan dibuat kepada kes berikut: i. Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 187 - Y.A Hakim Abdulcader In sentencing generally the public interest must necessarily be one of the prime considerations. Public interest should never be relegated to the background and must be necessity assume the foremost importance” ii. P.P v. Chung Kwong Huah (1981) 1 MLJ 316, [TAB 3] Yang Arif Hakim Chan menyatakan di mukasurat 317 : “The public is entitled to be protected and it is not likely to be so protected if lenient sentences are passed …. I would like to cite one particular passage from the judgment of Hilbery J in Reg v Blake[1962] 2 QB 377, 383 where he said: “It is of the highest importance, perhaps particularly at the present time, that such conduct should not only stand condemned, should not only be held in utter abhorrence by all ordinary men and women, but should receive, when brought to justice, the severest possible punishment. This sentence had a threefold purpose. It was intended to be punitive, it was designed and calculated to deter others and it was meant to be a safeguard to this country.” I share those views and I am sure that they are shared by all ordinary men and women in this country. I think they apply in this case.” iii. Norsharizan Junaidi v PP (2016) 1 LNS 17 - Mahkamah Rayuan “Sentencing has two primary purposes. One is to punish the offender for the offence that he or she had committed and found guilty of. Two is to serve as deterrent to others so that the public is protected from would be future offenders of the same offence or any other offence. This is the public interest element in sentencing. In R v. Ball 35 Cr Appeal R 164 it was said that public interest is [2016] 1 LNS 17 Legal Network Series 4 first and foremost consideration. In the same case it was also said that criminal law is public enforced with the objective of punishing crime as well with the hope of preventing. A proper sentence passed may achieve these two objectives. Public interest is best served if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living.” In certain cases, depending on the sentence passed and the relevant statutory provisions on sentencing, the sentence could also serve as a means to rehabilitate the offender and to keep the offender (particularly the first offender) away from the path of crime in the future. It is here that the Court in meting out sentence must do the balancing act - between public interest and that of the offender. Too lenient a sentence would not have a deterrent effect and may be seen as a weakness. Too excessive a sentence (especially long custodial sentence) may not have the desired effect on the offender which is to punish him and at the same time to allow him to rehabilitate. Instead keeping the offender longer than necessary in custodial sentence, may turn the offender into a hardened criminal due to prolong association with the undesirable elements behind the prison walls. iv. PP v Abdul Halim Abd Samat [2014] 4 CLJ 12 – Mahkamah Rayuan

If the court were to accede to the request of the accused's counsel, the public will think that the court is putting the interest of criminals above the interest of the public. That cannot be right. This type of criminal conduct must be dealt with severely by the courts if it is to serve as a warning to other would be offenders. Furthermore, the element of public interest may be best served through imposition of a custodial sentence. (para 13)

Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini berpendapat hukuman pemenjaraan yang panjang adalah penting untuk mengasingkan OKT dari masyarakat dalam memastikan masyarakat boleh menjalani kehidupan yang aman tanpa ancaman jenayah kecurian.

Apatah lagi, OKT yang merupakan warga asing berani melakukan kesalahan secara terbuka di sebuah pasaraya awam yang menunjukkan OKT tidak takut dengan undang-undang negara ini dan oleh yang demikian adaklah wajar hukuman penjara yang panjang dikenakan supaya OKT serik melakukan kesalahan sama di masa hadapan.

Ini adalah bukannya “petty crime” untuk hukuman ringan sahaja dijatuhkan. Ini adalah kesalahan serius dimana kesalahan ini diperuntukkan maksimum penjara selama 10 tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan denda. Ia sangat jelas menunjukkan “intention of Parliament” sewaktu menggubal undang-undang ini bahawasanya ini adalah kesalahan serius yang memerlukan “deterrant sentence” bagi memberi pengajaran kepada pelaku jenayah berkenaan.

Prinsip undang-undang berhubung perkara ini ada dijelaskan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Leo Say & Ors [1985] CLJ 683 (Rep);dimana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa; “Although they are entitled to some credit for that, it must be set off against the enormity and seriousness of the crime that they have committed. As a result of what they have done, a defenceless man was killed in cold blood. In the case of Krishnamoorthy, it must be set off against the far more serious matter that he was the leader and the originator of the scheme.” “Likewise, in the case of sentencing policy, the sentencing Court ought to proceed upon a parallel rather than a diverging course with the trend in legislation which reflects the view of Parliament as to what the public interest demands in a particular field of law. The increasing recognition by Parliament of the need for imposing severe penalties for certain type of offences is a factor which should not be overlooked by a Judge.” “I would be failing in my duty if I do not pass sentences which make it absolutely plain that those who indulge in such conduct do receive sentences of the utmost severity. The sentences should act as a warning to others not to take part in similar offences. Such conduct should not only be held in utter abhorrence by all ordinary men and women, but should receive, when brought to justice, the severest possible punishment.”

Seterusnya, di dalam kes PP v Adenan Nawi Jamain & Anor [2015] 1 LNS 471 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa: “In passing the appropriate sentence, the first and foremost, the court has to consider public interest. The sentence given by the court must commensurate with the seriousness and the gravity of the offence. The court must give a strong message to the public of the court's disapproval and abhorrence of particular types of crime (Regina v. Davies [1978] 667 Cr App R 207). Hence, the only way that the court can do this is through the sentence its pass (R v. Sarjeant [1974] 60 Cr App R 74).”

Mahkamah seterusnya setelah mengambil kira bahawa OKT telah mengaku salah serta mengakui benar fakta kes dan semua eksibit P2 hingga P9 dan setelah mendengar rayuan peringanan dan hujahan pemberatan, Mahkamah telah menerima pengakuan salah OKT serta mendapati OKT bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan.

Oleh yang demikian, mengambilkira faktor-faktor di atas, Mahkamah kemudiannya telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 6 bulan dari tarikh tangkap 15.8.2025 dan denda RM 2000 gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara

Mahkamah ini berpendapat hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap OKT adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi kesalahan sebegini. WAN MOHD I’ZZAT BIN WAN ABDULLAH MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET KOTA BHARU KELANTAN Bertarikh: 6.10.2025 PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak pendakwaan: Nur Haziqah binti Hassan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Bagi pihak Pembelaan: Tertuduh mewakili diri sendiri