kepentingan awam menuntut supaya Perayu dikenakan hukuman penjara dan juga sebatan yang setimpal dengan kesalahan-kesalahan yang dilakukan, supaya ia bukan sahaja menjadi satu pengajaran kepada Perayu, tetapi juga menjadi satu deteren kepada masyarakat dan juga mana-mana lelaki di luar sana, terutamanya yang berada dalam kapasiti amanah dengan mana-mana kanak-kanak supaya tidak melakukan perbuatan terkutuk dan keji iaitu amang seksual kepada kanak kanak tersebut. [ 22 ] Dalam kes-kes rayuan daripada mahkamah rendah, Mahkamah Tinggi hanya boleh mengenepikan keputusan mahkamah rendah jika keputusan itu salah di sisi undang-undang. Dalam rayuan terhadap hukuman, mahkamah perlu melihat sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan memenuhi prinsip-prinsip penghukuman yang dinyatakan dalam undang-undang dan tidak terlalu berat atau terlalu ringan. Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 YA Hashim Yeop Sani (as he then was) menyatakan – “The principles to be applied in imposing sentence however are the same in every case. The High Court sitting in exercise of its revisionary powers will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed on the record or to all the facts which the court ought to take judicial notice of, that is to say, that the lower court clearly has erred in applying the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence. It is a firmly established practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have passed a different sentence.” [penekanan ditambah] [ 23 ] Dalam kes ini, isu asas yang dibangkitkan ialah kesan yang meremukkan (crushing effect) terhadap Perayu disebabkan oleh tempoh hukuman penjara yang lama dan berturutan. Mahkamah dalam kes Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572 telah membincangkan isu crushing effect dan prinsip yang diguna pakai untuk menentukan sama ada sesuatu hukuman pemenjaraan sepatutnya berjalan secara serentak atau berturutan dan memutuskan – “Section 282(d) prescribes the general rule that a sentence of imprisonment shall take effect from the date on which it was passed unless the court passing the sentence otherwise directs. Section 292 is a specific provision dealing with the date of commencement of a sentence of imprisonment of a person who is already undergoing imprisonment. Under this section the court may order the imprisonment to commence either immediately or at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. An order that the subsequent prison term is to start immediately does not negate s. 292(2) as adverted to in Shafruddin Selengka v. PP [1994] 4 CLJ 762. It is expressly authorised by s. 292(1) and what is prohibited is only that the term of imprisonment cannot commence at any point of time prior to the date of conviction.... The exercise of the discretion to determine the date of commencement of the sentence of imprisonment is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In deciding whether the terms of imprisonment should be consecutive or commence at another date the court will be guided by the one transaction rule and the totality principle. Pursuant to the one transaction rule where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction all sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive (see R v. Saleem [1964] Crim LR 482; R v. Walsh [1965] Crim LR 248). For there to be one transaction four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design (see Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1979] CLJU 36; ; [1979] 1 LNS 36; ; [1979] 2 MLJ 88; Amrita Lai Hazra v. Emperor 42 Cal 957; Chin Choy v. PP [1955] 1 LNS 17; ; [1955] MLJ 236). The rule, however, is not absolute. As Yong Rung How CJ said in Kanagasuntharam v. PP [1992] 1 SLR 81 at p. 83: The English courts have recognised that there are situations where consecutive sentences are necessary to discourage the type of criminal conduct being punished: see R v. Faulkner [1972] 56 CrApp R 594,R v. Wheatley [1983] 5 CrApp R (S) 417 and R v. Skinner (1986) 8 CrApp R (S) 166. The applicability of the exception is said to depend on the facts of the case and the circumstances of the offence... Young CJ said in that case that the question of whether the sentence imposed is crushing cannot be answered mathematically by reference to the offender’s age and the length of sentence to be served but by the circumstances of the case.... It must be remembered that both the offences were executed in the same manner and are of the same severity and are unrelated. It cannot be denied that the cumulative effect of both the sentences will have a crushing effect on the accused bearing in mind his age. But this effect must be balanced against the seriousness of the offences committed by him and the need to protect young females from him. The order made by the High Court in upholding the direction of the Sessions Court on the commencement of the jail term imposed in this case is therefore correct in law and we are unable to interfere.” [penekanan ditambah] [ 24 ] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kesalahan dalam kes ini tidak dilakukan dalam satu transaksi, di mana kejadian yang telah dipertuduh dan disabitkan ke atas Perayu adalah pada masa dan mangsa yang berbeza. Maka berdasarkan prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes Bachik Abdul Rahman di atas, hukuman pemenjaraan secara berturutan yang dijatuhkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen sememangnya wajar dan mengikut lunas undang-undang. [ 25 ] Mahkamah juga telah mempertimbangkan jumlah keseluruhan hukuman pemenjaraan yang akan dijalani oleh Perayu kerana hukuman pemenjaraan dalam kes ini akan bermula selepas tamatnya hukuman dalam kes BD-62JS-6-09/2021 dan BD-62JS-7-09/2021. [ 26 ] Dalam hal ini, berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan kes ini, mahkamah mendapati Perayu telah melanggar amanah yang diletakkan ke atasnya setelah mengahwini ibu kepada SP1 dan SP2 serta sikapnya yang mengambil kesempatan terhadap mangsa yang umurnya mentah dan senang terpengaruh. Tiada keinsafan ditunjukkan oleh Perayu walaupun SP2 yang risau dan bertanya sampai bila mereka akan berterusan begitu apabila telah faham perbuatan mereka adalah salah. [ 27 ] Lanjutan itu, mahkamah mendapati ini merupakan suatu kesalahan yang memerlukan hukuman yang mencerminkan keseriusan kesalahan, kepentingan awam serta menuntut hukuman yang bersesuaian kepada kesalahan untuk menjadi balasan dan pengajaran kepada Perayu khususnya serta kepada awam secara amnya. [ 28 ] Atas alasan itu, mahkamah ini menolak hujahan peguam Perayu berhubung kesan hukuman yang meremukkan terhadap Perayu. [ 29 ] Mahkamah telah meneliti Alasan Penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana berkaitan hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas Perayu dan berpendapat hukuman terhadap Perayu adalah memadai dan bukan terlalu tinggi mengikut fakta dan keadaan kes. [ 30 ] Dalam kes Azman bin Arifin lwn Pendakwa Raya [2023] MLJU 2799, Mahkamah Rayuan telah meneliti trend hukuman bagi kesalahan-kesalahan amang seksual dan sebagainya seperti berikut – “[39] Bagi melihat kepada trend hukuman, rujukan dibuat kepada beberapa nas undang-undang yang berkaitan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017. Di antaranya adalah seperti berikut: [40] Di dalam kes Md Jahangir v. Pendakwa Raya [2020] 1 LNS 115, Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali H (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: “[54] My own research shows that the punishment recorded in recent cases for Section 14 offences include Mohamad Izzaini bin Zainudin v. Public Prosecutor [2019] 7 MLJ 366 where the sentence was a jail term of 7 years and one stroke of whipping for each of the three charges, Helerryak Bungkok v. Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 LNS 315; [2019] 10 MLJ 308 where the imprisonment was for 10 years, accompanied with two strokes of whipping for each of the two charges under Section 14 (d); and Razali bin Silah v. Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 LNS 1508; [2019] 12 MLJ 205, where a jail term of 4 years and one stroke of whipping was ordered by the Court. In my judgment, the sentence meted out against the appellant - of 6 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest and two strokes of whipping is in consonance with a careful attempt to strike a balanced determination of the most proportionate, fair and appropriate punishment for the appellant for having pleaded guilty to the commission of the offence under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017.” [41] Di dalam kes Azman Mahedin v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 1673, Dr Hj Alwi Hj Abdul Wahab H memutuskan seperti berikut: “[26] The relevant case law for consideration is the case of Public Prosecutor v. Mad Salleh Naif [2019] 5 LNS 16 where the accused in that case was charged under the same section of Act 792 as in the instant appeal. In that case, the accused pleaded guilty for the offence of touching, kissing and licking the victim’s private part and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with 2 strokes of whipping. [27] In the instant appeal, the appellant was sentenced to 8 years which in my view is too high the price to pay for a mild offence of merely touching the victim’s buttock momentarily. In the circumstances, I am minded to reduce the sentence of 8 years imposed by the learned SCJ to 6 years. The Court’s view on the seriousness of this type of offence is not diminished as the whipping sentence imposed by the learned SCJ is affirmed although the learned counsel for the appellant urged this Court to set aside the whipping sentence as there was no injury or threat caused to the victim. The 6 years imprisonment term, in my view, is sufficient and commensurate as punishment to the appellant for what he had done to his niece despite there was no violent act and/or threat involved. [28] The conviction by the learned SCJ is affirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 8 years to 6 years. The whipping sentence of 2 strokes as imposed by the learned SCJ is maintained and affirmed. “ [42] Di dalam kes Fadzil Sulaiman v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 1551, Zulkifli Bakar H memutuskan seperti berikut: “Hukuman penjara 8 tahun bagi kes BA-42JSKH(A)-2- 11/2018 dikurangkan kepada 4 tahun penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan. Namun hukuman 2 tahun penjara tambahan di bawah Seksyen 16 Akta yang sama serta 2 sebatan dikekalkan bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan dan diperintahkan untuk dijalankan serentak; Hukuman penjara 6 tahun bagi kes BA-42JSKH(A)-4- 11/2018 dikurangkan kepada 4 tahun penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan. Namun hukuman 2 tahun penjara tambahan di bawah Seksyen 16 Akta yang sama serta 2 sebatan dikekalkan.” [43] Di dalam kes Safri v. PP [2020] 1 LNS, Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh PK (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: “[61] Hakim bicara yang bijaksana telah menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap tertuduh seperti berikut: