A plea of guilty does not automatically entitle an accused to a lesser sentence, especially in cases involving severe crimes, where public interest must be prioritized.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA:

Introduction:

[1] The Appellant (Md Shahzada Saju), a Bangladeshi national was at first charged with murdering his own wife, Sajeda - E Bulbul, also a Bangladeshi national under s 302 of the Penal Code (original charge), at the Kuala Lumpur High Court , for which he claimed trial.

[2] At the close of the Case for the Prosecution, the learned High Court Judge (LHCJ), found that the Prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case on the original charge and instead found that a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder had been made out against the Appellant under s 304(a) PC. Flowing from there, the LHCJ called on the Appellant to enter his Defence under an Amended Charge as per below:

Pertuduhan Pindaan

"Bahawa kamu antara jam lebih kurang jam 4.15 pagi 3 Julai 2018 hingga jam 3.16 pagi 5 Julai 2018 di bilik tidak bernombor di alamat 98C Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah, di dalam Daerah Dang Wangi, dalam Wilayah Persekutuan KualaLumpur telah melakukan perbuatan yang menyebabkan kematian Sajeda - E Bulbul (No Pasport: BA0732570) dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kematiannya (atau sesuatu bencana tubuh yang mungkin menyebabkan kematiannya), dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan mematikan orang dengan salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh, dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan."

[3] The Appellant elected to plead guilty to the abovesaid Amended Charge, having understood the nature and consequence of his said plea. The LHCJ then accordingly found him guilty and convicted him of the abovesaid Amended Charge and after hearing mitigation, sentenced the Appellant to twenty (20) years' imprisonment, to take effect from the date of his arrest being, the 25 July 2018. Effectively, the Appellant was handed down with the maximum imprisonment sentence under the said provision.

[4] Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal as per his Notice of Appeal (Encl 444 referred). Hence, this Appeal before this panel.

Petition Of Appeal And Submission

The Appellant's Submission

[5] The Appellant challenged the sentence imposed by the LHCJ on the grounds as per in his Petition of Appeal (Encl 18 referred). Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the imprisonment term of twenty (20) years imposed by the LHCJ is manifestly excessive and wrong in law. In brief, the learned counsel for the Appellant (counsel) submitted the following grounds:

(i) that the LHCJ failed to consider the interest of the Appellant and instead had only considered public interest; and

(ii) that the LHCJ failed to give due consideration to the fact that the Appellant had pleaded guilty to the Amended Charge at the very first instance. In short, counsel submitted that the Appellant is entitled to a discount.

[6] Counsel further submitted that the LHCJ had failed to act judiciously by failing to apply the correct sentencing principle and had neglected to follow the relevant sentencing practice.

[7] Counsel relied heavily on the Supreme Court case of Mohd Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. PP ; ; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 209 and the Federal Court case of Sau Soo Kim v. PP ; where it was held that a plea of guilt will entitle the accused to a discount of the sentence to be imposed.

The Respondent's Submission In Reply

[8] Conversely, learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) for the Respondent submitted that the LHCJ did not commit any error in law nor in fact, with regard to the sentence imposed. Learned DPP submitted that based on the LHCJ's GOJ, it is apparent that the LHCJ had considered all relevant factors for sentencing, namely:

(i) Public interest;

(ii) Nature of offence committed;

(iii) Sentencing trend; and

(iv) Appellant's plea of guilt.

[9] Based on the above, learned DPP submitted that there is no appealable error by the LHCJ, for the sentence imposed to be disturbed by this Court . As such, learned DPP prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed and the sentence be upheld accord