HASHMAT KHAN v Pendakwa Raya
Outcome
Dengan itu, kami sebulat suara memerintah seperti yang berikut: (i) Rayuan perayu terhadap hukuman ditolak; dan (ii) Hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh tiga puluh (30) tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap (1 Oktober 2021) dan dua belas (12) kali sebatan bagi kesalahan mengikut seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan sepertimana yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi disahkan dan dikekalkan.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (3)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Illustrates the exercise of the sentencing discretion under section 34 of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 for a murder conviction under section 302 of the Penal Code, balancing a guilty plea and a clean record against the public interest.
This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against sentence for murder under section 302 of the Penal Code, following the coming into force of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023. The appellant had pleaded guilty in the High Court to a charge of murder, the plea being taken through a Pashto interpreter, and the court, satisfied that the plea was unconditional and that the appellant understood its nature and consequences, convicted him. Under the new sentencing regime, the court exercised the discretion now available to impose an alternative to the death penalty and sentenced the appellant to "pemenjaraan selama 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap" (30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest) together with twelve strokes of the cane. The appellant appealed against sentence only, and there was no cross-appeal by the prosecution. The Court considered the discretion conferred by section 34 of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 to impose an alternative sentence, weighing the mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and the fact that the appellant was a first offender with no previous record, against the public interest and the need for a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to society. It concluded that the term of imprisonment and the number of strokes imposed by the High Court represented the minimum provided for the offence under the applicable provision, so that there was no reason to interfere. The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal against sentence and affirmed the sentence. The judgment illustrates the exercise of the sentencing discretion under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 for a murder conviction founded on a guilty plea. The decision illustrates how the courts now approach sentencing for murder under the reformed regime, weighing a guilty plea and a clean record against the gravity of the offence and the public interest, and confirming that an appellate court will not interfere where the sentence imposed is already the statutory minimum.
Summary
The appellant, a Pakistani national, pleaded guilty to murder under s.302 of the Penal Code for killing an Indonesian woman named Juli at a premises in Semenyih, Hulu Langat. He was sentenced to the minimum of 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding no basis to interfere with the minimum sentence prescribed by law.
How was the appellant sentenced for murder after the abolition of the mandatory death penalty?
The High Court exercised the discretion under section 34 of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 to impose an alternative sentence of "pemenjaraan selama 30 tahun dari tarikh tangkap" (30 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest) with twelve strokes of the cane, and the Court of Appeal affirmed it.
Why did the Court decline to reduce the sentence?
It held that the term and the number of strokes represented the minimum provided for the offence under the applicable provision, and that the mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and the appellant's clean record, did not warrant interference given the public interest.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (b-05sh-88-02-2025)