JUDGMENT

Arun Noval Dass M:

[1] The accused in this case was charged with an offence under s 323 of the Penal Code read together with s 326A of the same Act. The charge against him read as follows:-

"Bahawa kamu pada 12 April 2017 jam lebih kurang 10.00 malam di dalam rumah sewa di alamat Jalan Raja Kampong Relau, 77100 Asahan, Tangkak, Johor, di dalam Daerah Tangkak, di dalam Negeri Johor, dengan sengaja telah menyebabkan kecederaan ke atas isteri kamu iaitu Suhana Binti Samdin No KP 880925-04-5250 di bahagian atas kepala sebelah kanan dan bahagian lengan tangan kanan, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s 323 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama s 326A Kanun Keseksaan"

[2] The accused was charged in Court on 24th August 2017. The charge was read and explained to him. The accused pleaded guilty. The accused also admitted to the facts of the case and the exhibits tendered by the prosecution.

[3] After the effect of his plea of guilt was explained to him and having ascertained that he understood the nature and consequence of his plea, I convicted him of the offence as framed in the charge. In mitigation, instead of stating the reasons for the Court to consider to reduce his sentence, the accused started to state different version of facts from the one tendered by the Prosecution.

[4] It is established principles of law that the facts of the case tendered by the Prosecution and its acceptance as true by the accused, is an important factor for the Court to consider in ensuring that the accused understands the nature and consequence of his plea. The Court is empowered to reject the guilty plea even after the conviction was recorded and before the sentence is passed, if the Court found that during his mitigation, the Accused had added qualification to his guilty plea. The Court refers to the case of ; [1998] 3 MLJ 243; [1998] 2 CLJ 213 where the Court held as follows:-

"In ; [1989] 2 MLJ 143; [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 75, it was held that in order to determine the validity of a plea of guilty, certain safeguards must be followed. They are, inter alia, as follows:

(i) the Court must ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea; and

(ii) the Court must ascertain that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him.

Although a plea of guilty is a confession of guilt, it does not of itself amount to a conviction. A conviction does not occur until there is an acceptance of the plea amounting to a determination of guilt by the Court... Thus, upon a guilty plea, the Court requires a summary of the facts of the case to ensure that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and intends to admit, without qualification, the offence alleged against him... The facts given should be confined to facts which the prosecution is able to prove and which are necessary to establish the charge... It enables the Court to ascertain whether admission of the facts amounts to a plea of guilty in law... It is the duty of a magistrate to defer acceptance of a plea of guilty until he has the facts alleged by the prosecution fully before him... The Court accepts a guilty plea when it is satisfied that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea. This will be done after the accused has admitted the facts... The Court is not bound to accept a plea of guilty in all cases. The accused is not to be taken at his word when he pleads guilty unless the plea is expressed in unmistakable terms with full appreciation of the essential terms of the offence...

Thus, if the magistrate is in any doubt as to whether the plea is an unequivocal plea of guilty, a plea of not guilty should be entered... As O' Connor J said in P Foster (Haulage) Ltd v. Roberts [1978] 2 All ER 751 at pp 754-755:

A Court cannot accept an equivocal plea of guilty: it has no discretion in the matter; faced with an equivocal plea the Court must either obtain an unequivocal plea of guilty or enter a plea of not