TAUFIK HIDAYAH BIN ABDULLAH v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Companion to the murder appeal: the Court of Appeal affirmed a section 326 grievous-hurt conviction and a consecutive sentence of 8 years' imprisonment and 5 strokes, confirming that distinct offences against different victims in one episode may attract consecutive sentences and that a bare denial cannot displace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This Court of Appeal decision is the companion appeal, heard together with the connected murder appeal, arising from the same joint trial and directed at the second of two amended charges faced by the accused (referred to here by role). The prosecuting authority is the “Pendakwa Raya” (the Public Prosecutor). This charge was one of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 326 of the Kanun Keseksaan (Penal Code), read with section 34 (common intention), in respect of injuries inflicted on a man on the same night of 7 August 2016 near Mambau, Seremban. As with the murder charge, the two co-accused named in the charge had died before the appeal was heard.

The trial court had found a prima facie case on both charges and called the accused to his defence. On appeal, the court — Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz JCA delivering, with Azmi bin Ariffin and Alwi bin Hj. Abdul Wahab JJCA — considered whether the trial judge had adequately weighed the prosecution and defence evidence. It concluded that the defence, a bare denial, could not in law raise a reasonable doubt: “penafian semata-mata tidak dari segi undang-undang menimbulkan keraguan munasabah”. The prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court found no basis to interfere.

On this charge the sentence was 8 years' imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane, expressly ordered to commence only after the accused had served the sentence for the section 302 offence — that is, consecutively. The court dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence, noting in particular that the two victims were different persons, which supported the separate and consecutive treatment of the two charges: “rayuan terhadap hukuman juga ditolak” (the appeal against sentence is also dismissed).

The decision is significant for confirming the propriety of consecutive sentences where a single episode produces distinct offences against different victims, and for reaffirming that a bare denial cannot unsettle a conviction founded on evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt.