A court may impose consecutive sentences when distinct offences committed during a single transaction demonstrate different victim injuries, requiring deterrence against violent crimes.

[1] The three respondents were initially charged with two offences under s 302 of the Penal Code . The prosecution then tendered amended alternative charges under s 304(a) of the . All the three respondents pleaded guilty to the alternative charges, which are as follows:

First amended alternative charge:

Bahawa kamu pada 28 Julai 2004 antara jam lebih kurang 12.30 tengah malam hingga 7.40 pagi, di Terusan, Mukim Juaseh di dalam Daerah Kuala Pilah dalam Negeri Sembilan, bagi mencapai niat bersama kamu semua telah menyebabkan kematian ke atas Chong Pui Wan (No. K/P: 861204-59-5128) dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan homisid salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun yang sama.

Second amended alternative charge:

Bahawa kamu pada 28 Julai 2004 antara jam lebih kurang 12.30 malam hingga 2.15 pagi, di kawasan tangki air, Taman Meranti, Bahau, di dalam Daerah Jempol, dalam Negeri Sembilan, bagi mencapai niat bersama kamu semua telah menyebabkan kematian ke atas Puk Chia Wen (No. K/P: 850407-05-5021) dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan homisid salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun yang sama.

[2] The respondents were each sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment on each charge and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently from the date of their arrests. The PP appealed against the sentences imposed on the respondents.

[3] In the argument before us the learned Deputy PP raised only one issue, that is, the sentences of imprisonment should be made to run consecutively and not concurrently.

[4] The facts of this case are straight forward. At about 12.30am on 28 July 2004 the two deceased were waylaid by the three respondents while they were inside a stationary car at a hilly area in Taman Meranti, Bahau, Daerah Jempol, Negeri Sembilan. The three respondents went there with the intention of committing a robbery and they brought a knife with them. Puk Chia Wen (the first deceased) was ordered to get out of the car while a knife was placed at his neck. The three respondents took the first deceased to a place nearby where they robbed him of his wallet, mobile phone and a ring. While robbing the first deceased they tied his hands and his mouth with a T-shirt cloth. They stabbed his stomach and slashed his neck with the knife. They left the first deceased there. The first deceased's body was found by a member of public at about 2.45am on the same day by the roadside.

[5] The three respondents then went back to the car and pushed Chong Pui Wan (the second deceased) to the back of the car. They got into the car and one of them drove the car to Terusan, Mukim Juaseh, Kuala Pilah. On arrival at the place they took her out of the car. They stabbed her stomach and slashed her neck with the same knife. They put her body inside the boot of the car and drove the car to a nearby lake. They tried to push the car into the lake but they were unable to do it. They left the car there and threw the knife into the lake. They took the second deceased's mobile phone and ring. At about 7.40am the second deceased's body was found floating in the lake.

[6] A post-mortem report on the first deceased prepared by Dr. Mohamad Azaimi bin Ibrahim, a Forensic Pathologist attached to Hospital Melaka states, inter alia:

(a) There was an incised wound over the neck. There were stab wounds over the abdominal region. Other injuries in the form of abrasions and bruises were seen on the body and limbs of the deceased.

(b) Internal examination showed a severed trachea and veins of the neck. There were injuries to the stomac