The court clarified that public interest in deterring violent crimes outweighs a complainant's wish to withdraw charges when determining sentences.

[1] The accused person was earlier charged with attempted murder under s 307 of the Penal Code (" PC ") and she claimed trial. Based on the record of proceedings on 17 April 2017 the court below was informed that the complainant had written in to the Attorney General expressing her intention not to proceed with the case and wanted to withdraw her police report. The case was then postponed to 9 May 2017. On 9 May 2017 the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor ("DPP") informed the court below that the Attorney General had rejected the complainant's application and the trial thereafter commenced with the complainant herself being called to take the stand.?

[2] After having ten witnesses called the prosecution tendered an amended charge pursuant to a representation submitted by the accused person. The amended charge was one under s 326 of the PC an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The amended charge reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 21 December 2016 antara jam 0700hrs sehingga jam lebih kurang 1200hrs di dalam rumah beralamat No 62, Jalan PJU 7/30, Mutiara Damansara, Damansara, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, dengan sengaja telah menyebabkan cedera parah ke atas seorang perempuan warganegara Indonesia yang bernama Suyanti binti Sutrinso, No Passport: B 5682910 dengan menggunakan sebilah pisau berhulu biru, sebatang pengelap lantai, sekaki payung, sebatang rod besi warna biru, sebatang alat mainan kucing dan satu penyangkut baju warna putih yang digunakan sebagai senjata untuk menyerang dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 326 Kanun Keseksaan."

[3] This charge was tendered on 8 January 2018 and the accused person claimed trial but decided to plead guilty after the matter was stood down. The learned Sessions court Judge thereafter postponed the case to 11 January 2018 and subsequently postponed to 15 February 2018 and finally the continued hearing of the case was fixed on 14 March 2018.

[4] On 14 March 2018 the amended charge was read over and explained to the accused person and she maintained her guilty plea. Thereafter the facts were read and the exhibits were tendered and she admitted to the same. Having satisfied that the accused person understood the nature and consequences of the plea and admitted to the facts and the exhibits tendered, the learned Sessions court Judge accepted the plea of guilt and entered a conviction and called upon the parties to submit on the sentence.

[5] Both parties referred to their written submissions respectively. In mitigation she advanced the following factors:

5.1 Married with no children and a full time homemaker;

5.2 She cooperated with the police and never failed to attend the hearings;

5.2 She regretted her action and remorseful;

5.4 The complainant had wanted to withdraw her police report and did not wish to pursue this matter;

5.5 She was emotionally distressed;

5.6 She had undergone a surgery and attending physiotherapy; and

5.7 She had pleaded guilty.

[6] Learned counsel prayed that the accused be placed under a bond of good behaviour under subsection 294(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (" CPC ").

[7] In response the learned DPP pressed for a deterrent sentence based on the element of public interest. It was also pointed out that the fact that the complainant did not want to pursue was irrelevant and that the prosecution could still proceed with the case. The learned DPP did address the court below on the amendment to subsection 294(6) of the CPC .

[8] Having heard the mitigating factors and reply from the prosecution, the learned Sessions court Judge directed that the acc