Muniandy A/L Rajendran (AA-62RS-6-02/2024)

This is an appeal by the prosecution against sentence after the accused person’s guilty plea. [2] The accused was charged for robbery punishable under section 392 of the Penal Code. The charge reads— Bahawa kamu pada 01.02.2024 jam lebih kurang 6.15 pagi semasa di rumah di alamat No 41 Psrn Sengat Baru 22 Taman Bersatu Simpang Pulai 31300 Kampung Kepayang daerah Kinta di dalam negeri Perak, telah merompak wang tunai dalam anggaran RM30.00 milik Lee Kam Choi No Kpt: 620621-08-5180. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan.

The accused was brought before the Court. The charge was read and explained to the accused in Tamil by Court interpreter Yogeindran. The accused understood the charge read and explained in Tamil and pleaded guilty.

The nature and consequence and penalty of pleading guilty were read and explained to the accused in Tamil. The accused understood the nature and consequence and penalty of pleading guilty and maintained his plea of guilty. [5] The prosecution tendered the fact of the case and amended “June” to “February”. The amended facts of the case was read and explained to the accused in Tamil. The accused understood the amended facts of the case and admitted as correct. The amended facts of the case was marked as Exhibit P1. [6] The prosecution then tendered other exhibits— [i] Exhibit P2 – police report Simpang Pulai/526/24; [ii] Exhibit P3 – police report Simpang Pulai/532/24; [iii] Exhibit P4 – sketch plan; [iv] Exhibit P5(A)-(J) – 10 photographs of the scene of crime; [v] Exhibit P6(A)-(D) – 4 photographs of the victim’s injuries; [vi] Exhibit P7(A)-(E) – 5 photographs of the exhibits; [vii] Exhibit P8 – senarai geledah; [viii] Exhibit P9(A)-(E) – 5 photographs of fittings; [ix] Exhibit P10 – laporan kawad cam; and [x] Exhibit P11 – laporan awal pemeriksaan perubatan mangsa. [7] All exhibits were showed and explained to the accused, the accused understood and admitted all the exhibits as correct.

The Court accepted the plea of guilty of the accused and found the accused guilty and convicted the accused of the charge preferred against him. [9] Before the Court sentenced the accused, the Court gave the accused an opportunity for mitigation. [10] The mitigation read— umur 30 tahun, telah berkahwin dengan 1 anak, kerja carwash pendapatan sehari RM50. Pohon hukuman minima.

Reply by learned DPP read— pohon hukuman setimpal sebagai pengajaran kepada OKT dan amaran kepada pesalah lain. OKT ditangkap pada 1.2.2024. [12] Based on the plea of guilty of the accused, the mitigating and aggravating factors and the entirety of the case, the Court sentenced the accused to 24 months from the date of arrest 1.2.2024. [13] Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, the prosecution filed an appeal. These are my reasons for the said sentence.

Section 392 of the Penal Code reads— Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and he shall also be liable to fine or to whipping (emphasis added) [15] The section does not specify the minimum sentence and only fixed the maximum of 14 years and liable to fine or whipping. [16] In the case of R v Ball (Kenneth John) [1951] 35 Cr. App. R. 164, the Court held— Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the Court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the Court has the right and the duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe. [17] Hence, 24 months is within the prescribed imprisonment sentence.

The interest of the accused must be balanced with the interest of the public. The sentence imposed should be such as to be a lesson to the accused so 4 as to turn his criminal ways to an honest living. At the same time, the public must be assured that they are protected against such offenders. [19] In the same case of R v Ball quoted above, the Court again held— …The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living…

Apart from the law applicable in this case, the Court also took into account the overcrowding of prisons. This Court refers to the news report, at https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/04/04/prisons-dept-relying-on-rehabilitation-programmes-to-ease-overcrowding/127234 dated 4.4.2024, where it was reported that in February 2024, prisons nationwide were housing 75,000 inmates, while their total capacity was 71,000. [21] In another news report dated 16.1.2024 at https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/01/16/malaysias -60-prisons-overcrowded-by-5-6-says-dg/, the Prisons Department Director-General Nordin Muhamad said the number of inmates exceeded the 60 prisons’ designated capacity by 5.6%. [22] This Court took into consideration the seriousness of the offence committed by the accused and the overcrowding of the prisons and decided that the 24 months jail sentence was sufficient to rehabilitate the accused and minimise the overcrowding. Dated this 28th day of May, 2024 Signed,