Pendakwa Raya v Mohd Fadli Bin Kamarazaman (CB-43-5-11/2022)

Pada 20.10.2022 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menjatuhkan hukuman kepada Responden iaitu penjara 12 tahun dari tarikh tangkap 13.10.2022 dan 12 sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 376 (3) Kanun Keseksaan, penjara 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap mulai 13.10.2022 dan 4 sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 14 (a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 dan penjara 10 tahun dari tarikh tangkap 13.10.2022 dan 5 sebatan rotan S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 15 (b) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. Pertuduhan Pertama “Bahawa kamu pada awal hingga akhir bulan Julai 2022, jam lebih kurang 1530 hrs di ruang tamu di rumah beralamat No. 8451 Lorong Mutiara 1, Taman Mutiara, dalam Daerah Jerantut, dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur telah didapati melakukan rogol ke atas anak kandung kamu bernama Putri Sophea binti Mohd Fadli, No. KPT: 111205-06-0560 berumur 10 tahun 10 bulan yang mana perhubungan kamu dengannya adalah tidak dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang, hukum agama, adat, kebiasaan yang terpakai kepada kamu untuk berkahwin dengannya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 376 (3) Kanun Keseksaan”. Pertuduhan Kedua “Bahawa kamu pada 9 Oktober 2022, jam lebih kurang 0800 hrs di atas sofa di ruang tamu di rumah beralamat No. 8451 Lorong Mutiara 1, Taman Mutiara, dalam Daerah Jerantut, dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur telah didapati melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas anak kandung kamu bernama Putri Sophea binti Mohd Fadli, No. KPT: 111205-06-0560 berumur 10 tahun 10 bulan dengan cara meraba di bahagian buah dada dan kemaluannya. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14 (a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14 Akta yang sama”. Pertuduhan Ketiga “Bahawa kamu pada 9 Oktober 2022, jam lebih kurang 0800 hrs di atas sofa di ruang tamu di rumah beralamat No. 8451 Lorong Mutiara 1, Taman Mutiara, dalam Daerah Jerantut, dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur telah didapati melakukan amang seksual fizikal ke atas anak kandung kamu bernama Putri Sophea binti Mohd Fadli, No. KPT: 111205-06-0560 berumur 10 tahun 10 bulan dengan cara membuatkan anak kandung kamu menyentuh kemaluan kamu. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14 (b) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14 Akta yang sama”.

Pada 21.10.2022 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menulis surat kepada mahkamah ini memaklumkan bahawa terdapat kekhilafan beliau semasa menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh. Dalam surat tersebut di perenggan 5 dinyatakan seperti berikut: “Niat/hasrat saya ketika menjatuhkan hukuman bagi penjara yang mana hukuman bagi ketiga-tiga pertuduhan, penjara adalah selama 22 tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap 13 Oktober 2022 iaitu 12 tahun penjara bagi pertuduhan pertama dan 10 tahun penjara untuk pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga. Walau bagaimanapun saya terkhilaf dengan tidak menyebut S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 secara jelas ketika menjatuhkan hukuman yang mana setelah selesai menjalani hukuman penjara bagi pertuduhan pertama, OKT juga dikehendaki menjalani hukuman penjara selama 10 tahun bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga secara serentak.”

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memohon agar kes ini disemak oleh mahkamah ini di bawah s. 323 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ).

Bidang kuasa mahkamah ini untuk membuat semakan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rendah jelas dinyatakan di bawah s. 31 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 seperti berikut: “31 Revision of criminal proceedings of subordinate courts The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in subordinate courts in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure.”

Sementara itu, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah di bawah s. memperuntukkan: “323 Powers to call for records of subordinate Courts

A Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of that subordinate Court. S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ

Orders made under sections 97 and 98 are not proceedings within the meaning of this section.” [6] Seterusnya, s. 325 KPJ menjelaskan apakah yang boleh dilakukan oleh Mahkamah semasa menjalankan bidang kuasa semakan adalah seperti berikut: “325 Powers of Judge on revision

A Judge may, in any case the record of the proceedings of which has been called for by himself or which otherwise comes to his knowledge, in his discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred by sections 311, 315, 316 and 317 of this Code.

No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had on opportunity of being heard, either personally or by advocate, in his own defence.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a Judge to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” [7] Adalah wajar untuk diingatkan bahawa hakikat kuasa semakan dan tujuan kewujudannya serta pemakaiannya seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Liaw Kwai Wah & Anor [1987] CLJ Rep.163 seperti berikut: “Object of revision We could observe that the power of revision is to be exercised in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure. In the present case that law is the S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ Criminal Procedure Code. We would also observe that the object of the revisionary powers provided for in the Code is to confer upon criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment, which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand, in some undeserved hardship to individuals. (Emperor v. Nasrullah & Others [1928] AIR All 287). It is also clear that the High Court may examine the record of proceedings in the subordinate Courts “wherever it considers that in doing so the purpose of justice will be served, as for example, when the record discloses no offence or when the accused is subjected to a vexatious and groundless prosecution.” (Chettiyar v. Ayyar IRC 47 Mad 722). Duty of High Court Basically, the duty lies with the High Court to see that the criminal law is properly administered by an inferior Court. The Judge’s duty is to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Where, for instance, a convicted person has scrupulous objection to invoke the jurisdiction of a High Court, either on a question of legality of conviction or error of law concerning the conviction or sentence, the Judge ought to call for and examine the record with a view to exercising the revisionary power to correct a miscarriage of justice. Power is discretionary The High Court’s power sitting in revision is discretionary. As it is, it must therefore be exercised judicially and within the limits and in the spirit of the legislation. “Discretion” is defined in the Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 2nd Edn., Vol. 2, at p. 82 to read: S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ ‘Discretion’ means that when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke’s Case [1598] 5 Co. Rep. 996); according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself: Wilson v. Rastall [1792] 4 Term Rep. at p. 757).” (Sharp v. Wakefield [1891] AC 173, HL, per Lord Halsbury LC at p. 179.) Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., at pp. 147 - 8, under the Heading “The exercise of discretions must be reasonable”, states that – Even though an act done is ostensibly in execution of a statutory power and within its letter, it will nevertheless be held not to come within the power if done otherwise than honestly and within the spirit of the enactment. A discretion is to be ‘regulated according to known rules of law.’ (Lee v. Bude &Torrington Junction Ry. Co. [1871] LR 6 CP 576, per Willes J at pp. 580, 581), and not the mere whim or caprice of the person to whom it is entrusted on the assumption that he is discreet... ‘It is true,’ said Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at p. 229), ‘the discretion must be exercised reasonably’. The principles which should guide the Courts in the exercise of the revisionary powers have been clearly set out by Jenkins CJ in R. v. Lachiram ILR 28 Bom 533. In that case his Lordship said that this controlling power of the Court is a discretionary power and it must be exercised with regard to all the circumstances of each particular case, anxious attention being given to the said circumstances, which vary greatly. In Re Soo Leot [1955] 1 LNS 127, Buhagiar J following the principles laid down by Jenkins CJ in R. v. Lachiram supra, S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ held that the powers of the High Court in revision are exercisable at the discretion of the Court and that discretion is untrammelled and free, so as to be fairly exercised according to exigencies of each case.” [8] Hakikat bidang kuasa semakan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes PP v. Abul Hassan Mohamed Rashid [2022] 9 CLJ 502 seperti berikut: “[38] Further, the High Court is also provided the power of revision under ss. 31 and 35(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("the CJA") which states: Section 31: The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in subordinate courts in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure. Section 35(1): In addition to the powers conferred on the High Court by this or any other written law, the High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subordinate courts, and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, if it appears desirable in the interests of justice, either of its own motion or at the instance of any party or person interested, at any stage in any matter or proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in any subordinate court, call for the record thereof, and may remove the same into the High Court or may give to the subordinate court such directions as to the further conduct of the same as justice may require. (emphasis added) [39] The above-mentioned statutes clearly provide that the revisionary power of the High Court conferred by s. 323 of the CPC and ss. 31 and 35(1) of the CJA only relates to revisionary jurisdiction over the subordinate courts. Nowhere S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ does it mention the power to review the High Court's own decision.” [9] Berdasarkan kepada surat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut ia menunjukkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah tidak menyatakan bahawa bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga hukumannya adalah berjalan serentak. Itulah yang dihasratkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen semasa memutuskan hukuman kepada Tertuduh. Namun ia tidak tersurat di dalam nota keterangan prosiding tersebut. [10] Persoalannya ialah adakah kedudukan sedemikian membolehkan mahkamah ini menggunakan bidang kuasa semakan bagi memperbetulkan atau memenuhi hasrat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut. Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam hal ini. Ia adalah disebabkan sekiranya pembetulan tersebut dibuat semata-mata ingin memenuhi hasrat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang tidak dinyatakan secara jelas di dalam nota prosiding boleh menyebabkan mahkamah ini telah memperbetulkan catatan di dalam nota prosiding yang bukannya tanggungjawab mahkamah ini. [11] Dalam sesuatu prosiding semakan mahkamah perlu melihat kepada catatan-catatan di dalam nota keterangan dan sekiranya mendapati bahawa terdapatnya keadaan seperti di bawah s. 323 KPJ mahkamah boleh menggunakan bidang kuasa semakan. S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ [12] Apabila hukuman berkaitan dengan pemenjaraan diberikan oleh mahkamah s. 282 KPJ adalah berkaitan terutamanya s. 282(d) yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “282 Provisions as to execution of sentences of imprisonment With regard to sentences of imprisonment the following provisions shall be followed:

where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment the Court passing the sentence shall immediately forward a warrant to the prison in which he is to be confined and, unless the accused is already confined in that prison, shall forward him in the custody of the police to that prison with the warrant;

every warrant for the execution of a sentence of imprisonment shall be directed to the officer in charge of the prison or other place in which the prisoner is or is to be confined;

when the prisoner is to be confined in a prison the warrant shall be lodged with the officer in charge of the prison;

every sentence of imprisonment shall take effect from the date on which it was passed unless the Court passing the sentence otherwise directs.” [13] Ini membawa maksud apabila hukuman pemenjaraan dijatuhkan ia mula berkuatkuasa dari tarikh hukuman diberikan melainkan mahkamah memerintahkan sebaliknya. Hal ini telah dinyatakan di dalam kes PP v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1 seperti berikut: S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ “I also considered the period the accused had been in remand from the date of his arrest. As he had been in remand for about seven months prior to being found guilty, I had to determine whether it should be taken into account in assessing sentence. It will have a bearing on the commencement of the date of sentence. This is governed by s 282(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads as follows: With regard to sentences of imprisonment the following provisions shall be followed:

…

…

…

every sentence of imprisonment shall take effect from the date on which the same was passed unless the court passing such sentence otherwise directs. The subsection makes it clear that the normal rule is that a sentence takes effect from the date on which it is passed. A departure from this rule is permissible if the court so directs at its discretion. As it is a discretionary power, an application to that effect must be made by the accused when he is making his plea in mitigation. Where a person has been in remand prior to his conviction such period may be taken into account in one of two ways in determining the sentence. The method chosen will play a decisive role in fixing the date of commencement of the sentence. It may be considered as a factor in assessing the sentence to be imposed in which event the sentence must commence from the date of conviction. If it is not so considered, the sentence may be ordered to take effect from the date of arrest. In the case of the former, the length of the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed would be reduced. In the case of the latter, no such reduction would be ordered but the sentence would be back-dated so as to span the period of the remand. As it is a matter of discretion, a court may decline to take any account of the period in remand (see R v Clarke (1996) 87 A Crim R 441). There is no obligation to back-date a sentence in all cases (see Muir v HM Advocate [1985] SCCR 402).” S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ Ia disahkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP [200] 2 3 CLJ 457 dan ditegaskan oleh YAA Mohamad Dzaiddin Ketua Hakim Negara seperti berikut: “It is of the upmost importance to stress here that the appellate court will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence passed by the lower court is manifestly inadequate or excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed or that the court has clearly erred in applying correct principles in the assessment of sentence. See: PP v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102, [1976] 2 MLJ 257.” [14] Selain daripada itu semasa menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan mahkamah juga mempunyai bidang kuasa atau budi bicara untuk memberikan hukuman pemenjaraan itu berjalan serentak atau berturutan. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes PP v Yap Huat Heng [1985] 2 MLJ 414 seperti berikut: “Where two or more distinct offences had been committed, sentences of imprisonment should not be made to run concurrently. It should only be made concurrent when an offender had been convicted of a principal and a subsidiary offence. In all other cases sentences should be made to run consecutively.” [15] Begitu juga dalam kes Hashim bin Pawanchee & Anor v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 66: “Where an accused is charged with several offences at one trial and convicted, he may be sentenced to several terms of imprisonment, one after the conclusion of the other. This is S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ clearly provided by section 102 of the Subordinate Courts Act

Therefore, upon an indictment containing two counts for distinct offences, the accused, if found guilty of each count, may be sentenced to imprisonment for two consecutive terms of punishment (R v Cutbush (1867) LR 2 QB 329). In the present appeal, both offences, the subject matter of the six charges, are clearly two distinct offences, one for dishonestly using as a genuine a forged document under section 471 and the other for dishonest misappropriation of property under section 403 of the Penal Code. Moreover, these offences were not committed in the course of the same transaction, although in point of time two offences were committed on the same day. Therefore, in my judgment, it is within the discretion of the learned magistrate to pass a consecutive sentence. However, bearing in mind the mitigating factors, i.e. the plea of guilty, first offenders and outstanding offences agreed to be taken into consideration, and most important of all that the maximum term of imprisonment for each offence is two years, in my considered judgment, a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment is manifestly excessive and unreasonable. I think an appropriate or fair punishment for each offence will be one year's imprisonment. In the result, I allow this appeal against sentence by reducing the period to that of one year's imprisonment. On the other hand, on the basis of the principles discussed above, in my judgment, the decision of the learned magistrate to order the sentence to run consecutively is not wrong in principle having regard to the offences and the totality of the sentences (see Marimuthu Balikrishnan v Public Prosecutor [1974] 2 MLJ 145).” [16] Begitu juga prinsip yang sama telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 MLJ 534. S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ [17] Penelitian kepada nota keterangan menunjukkan bahawa berkaitan dengan pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga dinyatakan seperti berikut: “Bagi pertuduhan 2 dan 3 hukuman penjara berjalan secara serentak.” [18] Ia ditegaskan lagi dalam nota keterangan setelah dijatuhkan hukuman di bawah s. 14(b) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap kanak-kanak 2017 dengan perkataan seperti berikut: “Mula berkuatkuasanya: Serentak dengan kesalahan: Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017.” [19] Mahkamah berpandapat berdasarkan kepada nota keterangan yang diperolehi oleh mahkamah adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa maksud Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen bagi hukuman pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga ialah ianya dijalankan serentak selepas tamatnya hukuman bagi pertuduhan pertama. Keputusan tersebut adalah dalam bidang kuasa yang boleh dilakukan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Ini bermakna tiada petanda yang menunjukkan bahawa keputusan tersebut adalah bercanggah dengan undang-undang, tidak betul atau tidak wajar sehingga memerlukan mahkamah ini menggunakan bidang kuasa semakan. S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ [20] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan yang dijatuhkan oleh mahkamah adalah di dalam bidang kuasa dan wewenang Mahkamah Sesyen dan tidak bercanggah dengan tempoh pemenjaraan yang diperuntukkan bagi kesalahan yang disabitkan. Begitu juga hukuman rotan juga tidak melebihi daripada 24 sebatan seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah s. 288(1) KPJ. [21] Oleh yang demikian mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa tiada alasan untuk menyemak keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut. Permohonan semakan ini adalah ditolak. Epilog [22] Adalah menjadi amalan yang murni dan mulia untuk Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen atau Majistret menyatakan dengan jelas hukuman pemenjaraan yang dijatuhkan kepada Tertuduh semasa mengumumkan keputusan tersebut di mahkamah terbuka. Ini bagi mengelakkan berlakunya kekeliruan semasa penyediaan waran pemenjaraan yang juga akan menimbulkan masalah kepada Jabatan Penjara bagi melaksanakan hukuman tersebut. Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu memastikan bahawa kepatuhan kepada s. KPJ bagi hukuman pemenjaraan, s. 288 KPJ bagi hukuman sebatan dan s. 283 KPJ berkaitan dengan hukuman denda. [23] Para Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dan Majistret, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dan Peguam seharusnya bersama-sama memastikan S/N 4Nw3Uv8x1k2uD6fomxlXQ bahawa kepatuhan Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dizahirkan dalam hukuman yang dijatuhkan kepada Tertuduh. Ini bagi memastikan mutu pentadbiran keadilan jenayah berada di tahap yang tinggi dan cemerlang dalam usaha mempertahankan nirmala sistem pentadbiran keadilan jenayah. Bertarikh: 03hb. Februari 2023 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Pemohon Ain-Nur’Amiyerra Awod Abdullah dan Nurul Balkis Zunaidi Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur Bagi Pihak Responden Rozilan Abdul Rahman Tetuan Rozilan & Aribah Ahmad Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur