Hamid Sultan JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the appellant's (a native of Sarawak) appeal against the sentence.

[2] The appellant was charged with the offence of incest under the new provision of the Penal Code s. 376A which came into force from 27 September 2001. The section reads as follows:

A person is said to commit incest if he or she has sexual intercourse with another person whose relationship to him or her is such that he or she is not permitted, under the law, religion, custom or usage applicable to him or her, to marry that other person.

[3] The section does not give a comprehensive definition of incest. However, it limits the offence of incest to cases where sexual intercourse has taken place between persons who are prohibited from marrying each other under their law, religion, custom or usage.

[4] The appellant was charged in the sessions court for three separate offences of incest relating to the same person (emphasis is mine) and the victim was only 17 years old. The amended charge reads as follows:

(i) Amended 1st Charge

That you, sometime in early February 2005 at about 5am at house No. 41, kampong Bogag, in the district of Bau, in the State of Sarawak, Malaysia committed incest rape on one Angeli Anak Leken (F) aged 17 years old, who is your step daughter and you thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376B of Penal Code.

(ii) Amended 2nd Charge

That you, sometime in middle of March 2005 at about 5am at house No. 41, kampong Bogag, in the district of Bau, in the State of Sarawak, Malaysia committed incest rape on one Angeli Anak Leken (F) aged 17 years old, who is your step daughter and you thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376B of Penal Code.

(iii) Amended 3rd Charge

That you, sometime in middle of April 2005 at about 5am at house No. 41, kampong Bogag, in the district of Bau, in the State of Sarawak, Malaysia committed incest rape on one Angeli Anak Leken (F) aged 17 years old, who is your step daughter and you thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376B of Penal Code.

[5] The appellant pleaded guilty to all the three amended charges. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a whipping of three strokes for each offence with an order for the sentence to run consecutively.

[6] The appellant has filed a statutory notice of appeal and petition of appeal. He was not represented here and the court below. The petition of appeal reads as follows:

1. Untuk pengetahuan Yang Arif, saya mempunyai tanggungan terhadap anak-anak saya yang masih kecil, sebab saya adalah ketua dalam keluarga dan saya orang yang susah. Sekarang saya berumur 40 tahun semasa pembebasan saya nanti umur saya sudah menjangkau 70 tahun. Ketika itu saya rasa tidak mampu lagi untuk saya melakukan apa-apa pekerjaan.

2. Untuk pengetahuan Yang Arif juga, saya memohon dari Yang Arif supaya hukuman keatas saya dijalankan berkuat kuasa dari tarikh saya ditangkap serta memohon jasa baik pihak Mahkamah agar dapat meringankan hukuman saya ini.

3. Dengan ini sekali lagi saya Yang Arif, memohon jasa baik pihak Mahkamah agar dapat mempertimbangkan permohonan saya agar hukuman saya dapat diringankan dan berjalan serentak. Di sini saya berjanji tidak akan mengulangi kesalahan ini lagi.

[7] The gist of the contents of the petition of appeal is one of mitigation and does not set out the definite particulars of the points of law or fact in regard to which the trial court is alleged to have erred. This is in breach of s. 307(6) of the CPC which reads as follows:

(6) Every petition of appeal shall state shortly the substance of the judgment appealed against and shall contain definite particulars of the points of law or of fact in regard to which the Court appealed from is alleged to have erred.

[8] Courts have taken strict and liberal approach in interpreting various provisions of s. 307 according to the justice of the case garnered from various cases, to mention a few are as follows: (i) Pitting bin Haji Mohame