RAIZNAN SHAH BIN RUZMI v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates how an appellate court moderates a custodial sentence for armed robbery under sections 392 and 397 of the Penal Code, reducing an excessive prison term while preserving the caning warranted by the gravity of an armed offence.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu is a criminal appeal against sentence in a gang-robbery case. The appellant had been charged in the Sessions Court at Kota Bharu with an offence under seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan (section 392 read with section 397 of the Penal Code) — robbery committed while armed with a deadly weapon — the particulars being that on 10 October 2024 in the living room of a house in the Bachok district he had robbed a victim of a gold bracelet while armed with a deadly weapon, an iron soil-rake. When the charge was first read to him in the Sessions Court, the appellant, who was then not represented by counsel, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment together with strokes of the cane. He appealed against the sentence.

The Court's task was to assess whether the eight-year custodial term was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, weighing the sentencing considerations for armed robbery — including the aggravating features pressed by the prosecution, the public interest and the protection of victims of such crimes — against the mitigating features of the appellant's case, including his unrepresented guilty plea at the first reading of the charge. The Court accepted that there must be limits to permissible variations in sentence between comparable cases.

Balancing those considerations, the Court held that a custodial term of five years, taking effect from the date of sentence, together with the caning imposed by the Sessions Court, would adequately serve the purpose of teaching the appellant not to repeat the offence while giving effect to the public interest and the protection of the victim. It accordingly reduced the term of imprisonment from eight years to five years, taking effect from the date of sentence, and maintained the sentence of caning. The judgment is a useful illustration of how an appellate court moderates a custodial sentence for armed robbery under sections 392 and 397 of the Penal Code, reducing an excessive prison term while preserving the caning that the gravity of an armed offence warrants.