Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA:

[1] The appellant in this case was charged at the Sessions Court for five offences of rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code in three separate cases. Three charges were registered in case no. 62-63-2004 and they were as follows:

1. rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code , committed in June 2000, at about 2am in an unnumbered house at Kg. Sungai Mengkuang, Manek Urai in Daerah Kuala Krai, Kelantan on one XXX (identity card XXX) then aged 12 years 2 months old;

2. rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code , committed in August 2001 at about 2am at the same place, on the same victim then aged 12 years 4 months old; and

3. rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code , committed in March 2002, at about 5am at the same place, on the same victim then aged 12 years 11 months old.

[2] Another charge was filed in case 62-64-2004, also rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code committed in June 2002, at about 11pm, at the same place, on the same victim then aged 13 years two months old as in the above charges. The fifth charge, in case no 62-65-2004 likewise was rape also punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code , committed on 1 November 2003, at about 12 midnight at the same place, on the same victim then aged 14 years seven months old. All the five charges were heard together.

[3] The appellant pleaded guilty to all the five charges, and on conviction, was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and ten strokes of the rotan for each and every offence. Each sentence was to run consecutively from the date of arrest. In a nutshell he would have to serve 75 years in jail and also receive a total of 50 strokes of the rotan. At the time when the appeal came before us he was about 48 years old, and if he were to serve the full 75 years, he would be 123 years of age when released.

[4] Dissatisfied with the orders of the subordinate Court, the accused had filed an appeal at the High Court but was dismissed on 5 May 2005, with the sentences of the Sessions Court accordingly affirmed. The appellant then filed the appeal against sentence at the Court of Appeal hence the matter before us. This panel allowed the appeal. We now discuss the background facts of the case.

Background Facts Of The Case

[5] The appellant is the stepfather of the victim. His acts of raping the victim came to light only when she delivered a baby boy at a hospital on 22 July 2004. The victim's mother promptly lodged a police report of the rape incidents and on 28 July 2004 the appellant was arrested. Investigations revealed that the victim had been raped by the accused since year 2001 when she was only 12 years old. She was last raped in November 2003 when she was 14 years seven months old. The question of consensual defence did not arise here as at the time of the rape incidents she never passed the age barrier of 16 years (s. 376B (b) of the Penal Code ).

[6] At the Sessions Court after the plea of guilt, and also before the High Court judge, the appellant had pleaded for leniency, and ventilated regrets for what he had done. He pleaded that he had a family comprising seven children of whom five were his own and two being stepchildren. The eldest child is 17 years old and the youngest nine months old. He ventilated that he supported his parents by sending RM50 to them every month. At the High Court he also pleaded that the sentences run concurrently.

[7] The prosecution's stance was simple and straightforward. Offences of incest on a child below the age of 16 had taken place, and the imprisonment demanded should not be less than 18 years and 10 strokes for each offence, with the sentences to run consecutively. This sentence would adequately teach the appellant a lesson, and simultaneously transmit the message to the public at large, of the heinousness of the offence. The fact that the victim is the step daughter of the appellant and had given birth to a child was strenuously highlighted by the respondent.

[8] The learned