[ ] 1. ) SUMARDI BIN AHMAD 2. ) ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN

BA-42H-28-11/2021 Kand. 33 04/08/2022 10:26:47 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI PUTRAJAYA DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: ANTARA 1. SUMARDI BIN AHMAD 2. ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN …PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA …RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN RAYUAN JENAYAH NO.: BA-42H-28-11/2021 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA …PERAYU DAN 1. SUMARDI BIN AHMAD 2. ABDUL MUZIL BIN KHALID DIN …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN 1 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [1] Kedua-dua Responden (R1 dan R2) dihadapan Mahkamah ini telah dituduh melakukan samun berkumpulan di bawah s.395 Kanun Keseksaan. Pertuduhan sebagaimana berikut: “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 15/6/2021 jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi, di 46F, Lorong 3, Jalan Klang, Batu 13, Kg. Sri Puchong, dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati melakukakn samun berkumpulan terhadap penama Siti Nur Aishah binti Ismail (No.Kpt: 020817-10-0400) dengan merompak wang tunai lebih kurang RM700/- yang merupakan harta dalam kawalan penama tersebut. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 395 Kanun Keseksaan.” [2] R1 dan R2 telah mengaku salah atas pertuduhan tersebut dan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) telah menjatuhkan hukaman penjara tiga (3) tahun mulai tarikh tangkap (18.06.2021) bagi setiap Responden. Terkilan dengan hukuman itu sekarang Pihak Pendakwaan merayu ke Mahkamah ini untuk satu hukuman yang lebih berat. 2 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [3] Setelah meneliti rekod prosiding dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan rayuan Pihak Pendakwaan dan menggantikan hukuman penjara tiga (3) tahun kepada tujuh (7) tahun mulai tarikh tangkap ke atas kedua-dua Responden. Fakta Kes [4] Fakta kes seperti yang diturunkan oleh HMS seperti berikut: Pada 15/06/21 jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi, semasa pengadu Siti Nur Aisyah berada di rumah beralamat No.46F, Lorong 3, Jalan Klang, Batu 13, Kampung Sri Puchong, Selangor, telah datang tertuduh (2) lelaki Melayu mengaku sebagai polis dengan menunjukkan kad dan berpakaian preman, Tertuduh telah mematikan lampu dan pengadu telah membuka pintu rumah untuk melihat kotak suis elektrik. Kedua-dua Tertuduh terus masuk ke dalam rumah dan meminta kad pengenalan pengadu. Tertuduh memarahi pengadu kerana memiliki kad pengenalan palsu. Tertuduh juga mengambil wang pengadu berjumlah RM700.00 bersama kad pengenalan. 3 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Hasil siasatan yang telah dijalankan didapati Tertuduh telah mengaku masuk ke dalam rumah pengadu dengan menyamar sebagai pegawai polis dan mengambil wang pengadu dan rakan-rakannya keseluruhannya berjumlah RM700.00. Barang kes iaitu wang berjumlah RM700.00 tidak dijumpai bersama-sama kedua-dua tertuduh semasa tangkapan dibuat oleh pihak polis. Rayuan [5] Pihak Pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan tidak mencerminkan bentuk pencegahan dan kesedaran kepada orang awam, HMS gagal mengambil kira graviti dan keseriusan kesalahan dan HMS gagal mengambil kira kekerapan berlakunya jenayah rompak dan samun di kalangan masyarakat. Dihujahkan bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah terlampau ringan. Pertimbangan HMS [6] Dalam menjatuhkan hukuman tersebut HMS telah mempertimbangkan faktor kepentingan awam sebagai faktor utama dalam mengenakan hukuman. HMS juga mengambil kira akan faktor 4 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Responden merupakan pesalah pertama, pengakuan salah responden, pencegahan dan mempertimbangkan hal keadaan kes. Dalam mempertimbangkan kesemua faktor itu HMS mendapati bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan yang lama akan mengganggu institusi kekeluargaan kedua-dua responden dan mempercayai kesalahan yang dilakukan akibat desakan hidup. Keputusan Mahkamah ini [7] Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan kebiasaannya tidak akan mengubah atau mengganggu sesuatu hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara kecuali hukuman tersebut salah dari segi undang- undang atau gagal mempertimbangkan prinsip-prinsip penghukuman atau ia terlalu berlebihan atau terlalu tidak mencukupi berasaskan kepada fakta dan keadaan kes. Prinsip ini ditegaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2002] 3 CLJ 457, di mana Mohamed Dzaidin CJ memutuskan seperti yang 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 5 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal disclosed or that the court has clearly erred in applying correct principles in the assessment of sentence, see Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102. (kes Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976]2 MLJ 256 juga dirujuk). [8] Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tidak akan meminda sesuatu hukuman hanya disebabkan mereka mungkin menjatuhkan suatu hukuman yang berlainan. Dalam kes Bhandulananda Jayatilake v PP [1981] 1 LNS 139 Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan: Therefore, sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judge. It is for that reason also that this court has said it again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the possibility or even the probability, that another court would have imposed different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court’s interference. [9] Dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan kesalahan serius seperti samun berkumpulan dan bersenjata, Mahkamah yang menjatuhkan hukuman mesti memberi penekanan kepada prinsip kepentingan awam, (Low Thim Fatt v PP [1989] 1 MLJ 305, PP v Lee Tak Keong [1989] 1 MLJ 307, Lee 6 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Chow Meng v PP [1976] 1 MLJ 287 dan Lee Wai Kam v PP [1976] 2 MLJ 19 dirujuk) Dalam kes Lee Tak Keong misalnya Mahkamah memutuskan seperti yang berikut: Held [1] In cases of robbery the court must take into consideration the element of public interest. …Furthermore the court must also consider society’s abhorrence of this type of crime”. [10] Dalam kes PP v The Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 187 Abdoolcadeer J dengan meminjam kata-kata dalam kes English Court of Appeal Reg v JH Sargeant (1975) 60 Cr App R 74 7778 menyatakan: "Deterrent sentences may very well be of considerable value where crime is premeditated. Burglars, robbers and users of firearms and weapons may very well be put off by deterrent sentences." [11] Walaupun HMS telah memberi pertimbangan kepentingan awam sebagai pertimbangan utama dalam menjatuhkan hukuman namun beliau gagal memberi pertimbangan secukupnya akan takat beratnya hukuman itu bagi melambangkan peri pentingnya kepentingan awan itu dengan hanya menjatuhkan hukuman tiga tahun penjara. 7 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [12] HMS juga telah gagal untuk menimbangkan peningkatan dan kekerapan kesalahan rompakan semasa menjatuhkan hukuman. Jenayah rompakan berlaku di mana-mana tanpa mengira tempat dan masa. Berbagai-bagai usaha telah dibuat oleh pemilik-pemilik terhadap premis mereka untuk mengelakkan kejadian kecurian, pecah rumah dan rompakan, tetapi perlakuan jenayah ini tidak mampu dibendung dan ia terus berleluasa. Kebimbangan terus membendung hati masyarakat awam. [13] Dalam kes Mohd Ridwan Mohd Yusof v PP [2014] 1 LNS 1940 yang mana Mahkamah Rayuan menyentuh tentang seriusnya kesalahan merompak dan telah menambah hukuman penjara dari tiga tahun kepada sepuluh tahun dengan mengatakan: [11] We are in this appeal dealing with a snatch theft offence. Of late the rampancy of this type of offence continues unabated. The victims of snatch theft incidents suffer a tremendous amount of trauma at the hands of the perpetrators with devious criminal intent. Some suffer grave physical and emotional stress. Some have even died. The Courts when assessing an appropriate sentence to be meted must bear in mind the modus operandi of the wrongdoer in committing this sort of offences. Most often than not, the modus operandi in snatch theft offences is crude and cunning. For instance, deadly weapons of violence are used with 8 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the intent to threaten and to induce fear upon the victim. The traumatic effect left on the victims, the way the victims are threatened with harm if they did not do as instructed, are factors which weigh heavily against leniency in the sentencing of such accused. We are of the considered view that the sentences passed should serve the following two purposes. Firstly, it should duly punish the accused for the grave crime that he had committed and secondly, in the interest of the public, it should act as a warning and deterrence to the potential offenders. In the case of Yusmarin bin Samsudin v. Public Prosecutor [1999] 4 MLJ 625 at p 627, Siti Norma Yaakob JCA (as she then was) said: “The principles of sentencing have long been entrenched and well settled in our criminal Jaw jurisprudence and a court seized with such jurisdiction is empowered to take into account the following considerations: • (1)the extent and seriousness of the offence committed; • (2)the guilty person’s antecedents; and • (3)the public interest factor.” [12] We would like to remind the courts below to take judicial notice of the increasing number of crimes relating to snatch theft as evident from news of such offences being constantly reported in the media. Courts must be receptive and hear the loud cry for justice from the society in snatch theft cases as in this case, and respond by imposing a proper sentence. The imposition of an appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society’s call for justice against such 9 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal criminals. Justice demands that the Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that it reflects the public’s abhorrence of such crime. Every punishment imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the accused alone, but also on the society as a whole. It is the duty of the Courts to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. (see Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa vs. State of Karnataka, [2012] 8 SCC 734 2012 lndlaw SC 262). [13] In view of the current and continuing upsurgence in such offences we feel that the time has now come for more vigorous emphasis on the element of deterrence to be brought to be seriously considered when imposing sentences. We are in this regard reminded of the sage sayings of Raja Azlan Shah, LP (as His Majesty then was) in Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1979] 1 LNS 48; ; [1980] 2 MLJ 13 where His Lordship held that: “Sentencing in a criminal case must of course bear relation to the particular circumstances of the offender as well as the particular circumstances of the offence. The legislature has in its wisdom and in the implementation of its plenary powers in this respect enacted the imposition of the alternative penalties of death or imprisonment for life under section 39B of the Ordinance with the option and discretion in this regard to be no doubt judicially and judiciously exercised according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and we can see no reason whatsoever why the statutory enactment of the option for punishment by death cannot 10 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal and should not be made functionally operative and exercised and applied proprio vigore if the circumstances and facts of the case so warrant, justify, require and perhaps even demand. Notwithstanding the several convictions for trafficking in drugs that have been secured, the rampancy of this type of offence still continues unabated with sequential impetus to related offences under the Ordinance, and in view of the current and continuing upsurgence of indulgence in dangerous and deleterious drugs and offences relating to and connected therewith, we feel the time has now come for some more vigorous element of deterrence to be brought to bear upon those trafficking in drugs, both active and potential, who are no less than engineers of evil and pedlars of death, to the intent and extent that intending offenders should be made to desist and be deterred, that those one step ahead and in the course of promoting or participating in such heinous activity should realise the extremely grave consequences they face, stop dead in their tracks, repent and resile, and that those who, notwithstanding still pertinaciously persist and have the misfortune of being apprehended, should know they are in for the punishment prescribed by law to fit the crime.” [14] Kegagalan HMS mempertimbangan perkara ini merupakan satu salah arah dalam menjatuhkan satu hukuman yang adil dan wajar dalam kesalahan merompak berkumpulan yang dilakukan oleh kedua-dua 11 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal responden. Malah pengakuan salah Responden itu telah menjadi berkurangan untuk dipertimbangkan apabila kesalahan yang dilakukan mereka merupakan satu kesalahan yang serius. Mahkamah ini merujuk dan menerima pakai prinsip-prinsip penghukuman yang digariskan oleh YA Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Augustine Paul (beliau pada ketika itu) dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Govindnan A/L Chinden Nair [1988] 2 MLJ 181 yang membuat pemerhatian berikut: “In my opinion, a guilty plea ought to be considered in favour of the accused only when all other factors and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence justify such a consideration. Its application in favour of the accused depends on the circumstances of each case (see WONG KAI CHUEN PHILIP V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1991] 1 MLJ 321). In PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. LOW KOK WAI [1988] 3 MLJ 123, Mohamed Dzaiddin (as he then was) said at p 124: …In the present case, the only mitigating factor is the accused’s plea of guilty. It is a principle of sentencing that whenever possible the court should take into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty. The extent to which a plea of guilt is a mitigating factor must depend on the facts of each case, and it cannot be a powerful mitigating factor when effectively no defence to the charge was available to the accused (see Archbold (42nd Ed) para 4- 480 citing R v. Davis [1980] 2 Cr App R (s) 168). The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea (see LEO SAY & ORS V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1985] 2 CLJ 12 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 155, LOH HOCK SENG V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1980] 2 MLJ 13 and PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. OO LENG SWEE & ORS [1981] 1 MLJ 247). Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of such a plea must also give way. In this regard, I refer to R V. COSTEN [1989] II Cr App R (s) 182(S) 182 where Lord Lane said at p. 184: But there are certain exceptions, likewise well authenticated in the authorities, to that general rule that discount will be allowed for a plea of guilty. The first and most important exception is the protection of the public. Where it is necessary that a long sentence, if necessary the maximum sentence, should be passed in order to protect the public, in those circumstances, a plea of guilty may not result in any discount. Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment.” [15] Di dalam kes R v. Ball (Kenneth John) [1951] 35 Cr App R 164, Hakim Hilbery menyatakan: “In deciding the appropriate sentence, a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy 13 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. 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 the 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.” [16] HMS tidak mempertimbangkan bahawa samun yang dilakukan oleh kedua-dua responden telah dirancang dengan mematikan lampu dengan tujuan supaya pengadu keluar dari rumah dan seterusnya rompakan dilakukan. Begitu juga rancangan kedua-dua mereka menyamar sebagai polis. Rompakan yang dirancang ini menunjukkan kesengajaan dan kebiasaan mereka melakukan kesalahan yang harus dikenakan hukuman yang berat. [17] HMS juga khilaf apabila mempertimbangkan satu hukuman penjara yang lama terhadap responden akan secara langsung mengganggu institusi kekeluargaan kedua-dua responden. Ia bukan saja satu 14 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal pertimbangan yang berlebihan malah ia merupakan perkara yang tidak sewajarnya menjadikan pertimbangan dalam sesuatu kesalahan yang serius. [17] Oleh yang demikian setelah meneliti Alasan Penghakiman HMS dan rekod rayuan, Mahkamah ini dapati hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh HMS yang bijaksana tidak mencerminkan keseriusan kes dan kepentingan awam. Ia terlalu rendah. Dengan itu Mahkamah ini mengenepikan hukuman tiga (3) tahun penjara dan digantikan dengan tujuh (7) tahun penjara mulai tarikh tangkap (18.06.2021) bagi kedua-dua responden. (AB. KARIM BIN AB. RAHMAN) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM TARIKH: 20 JULAI 2022 15 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal COUNSEL Bagi Pihak Perayu: En. Hafiz Baharudin Tetuan Hafiz Baharudin & Associates Peguambela dan Peguamcara Bagi Pihak Responden: TPR Tuan Heikal Ismail Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor 16 S/N jkq0pHFzikK46li2lUieA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal