Consecutive sentences are justified for distinct offences under the Penal Code, emphasizing public interest and the seriousness of the crimes committed.

JUDGMENT

Ainul Shahrin Mohamad SCJ:

Introduction

[1] There are two notices of appeal filed in this case. Enclosure 17 is the notice of appeal filed by the accused via the Prisons Department, against the consecutive sentence ordered by this Court . Enclosure 22 is the notice of appeal filed by counsel for the accused against sentence.

Background

[2] The accused was charged with an offence of robbery armed with a deadly weapon under s 392 of the Penal Code read with s 397 of the same Code. The charge read:

Bahawa kamu pada 25 Julai 2023 jam lebih kurang 8.37 malam bertempat di alamat Kedai Runcit Enam Puluh Lapan, no 12 Hala Pegoh Aman 4a Taman Pegoh, 31500 Ipoh di dalam daerah Kinta, di dalam negeri Perak telah merompak penama Musfirah binti Mustafa, KPT: 940122-08-6480 dan mengambil wang tunai RM3,000.00 milik Kedai Runcit Enam Puluh Lapan dan semasa melakukan rompak kamu telah menggunakan senjata pisau. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 392 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama s 397 Kanun yang sama.

[3] The accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 years and 2 whippings, to run after completing the sentence for case number AA-62RS-37-08/2023.

[4] The charge under case number AA-62RS-37-08/2023 was for gang robbery and reads:

Bahawa kamu, bersama-sama seorang lagi yang telah dituduh bernama Mohamad Farid bin Mohamad Adzaha KPT: 881210-08-5181, pada 26 Julai 2023 jam lebih kurang 4.30 petang di Rem Sawit lot 4648 Jalan Parit Kampung Dendang 32700 Beruas, di dalam daerah Manjung di dalam negeri Perak telah melakukan rompakan berkumpulan dengan bersenjatakan sebilah parang Oo Chong Hing (KPT: 541030-00-5597) dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 395/397 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama dengan s 34 Kanun Keseksaan.

[5] For case AA-62RS-37-08/2023, on 20 June 2024, the accused pleaded guilty before Judge Hilmiah bt Yusof in Sessions Court 4, Ipoh, and was sentenced to 5 years from the date of conviction and 1 whipping.

The Consecutive Order

[6] In passing the sentence to run consecutively with the sentence in case number AA-62RS-37-08/2023, this Court referred to subsection 292(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593] which reads:

When a person who is an escaped convict or is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence either immediately or at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, as the Court awarding the sentence may direct.

[7] In the present case, the accused was already serving sentence for case AA-62RS-37-08/2023, hence based on the above subsection, the imprisonment was ordered to commence at the expiration of that imprisonment.

[8] This Court also referred to the case of Mohd Zandere Arifin v. PP ; at p 695; [2006] 5 CLJ 663 at p 674 para G-P 675 para A, Ahmad Maarop J (as His Lordship then was), stated:

In the appeal before me the appellant had committed three distinct offences of incest. Although the victim in the three charges was the same and although the offences were perpetrated at the same place, they were perpetrated on three different dates within the period of about seven months. In my judgment the sentences passed must truly reflect the fact that in this case the appellant had committed three distinct offences of incest and that he is being duly punished for the three distinct offences. This, to my mind, could only be achieved by ordering the three sentences to run consecutively. I realise that the term of 18 years imprisonment imposed on each count in this case was almost the maximum sentence which could be imposed for an offence of incest under s 376B. I also realise that the cumulative effect of the sentences on the appellant (18 years x 3) will have a crushing effect on the appellant. However, this must be balanced against the very grave nature of the offences committed by the appellant and the demand of public interest on this type o