BETWEEN MOHAMAD SHAKIR ZUFAYRI BIN ARIFFIN... APPELLANT (IC.NO: ) AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT

Transcription

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42H-15-4/2016 (MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN NO. SKB(A)62JS /2014) BETWEEN MOHAMAD SHAKIR ZUFAYRI BIN ARIFFIN... APPELLANT (IC.NO: ) AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT A. BACKGROUND [1] The Appellant/Accused was charged for raping his girl friend, aged 16 years 5 months, an offence under section 376 (1) of the Penal Code, punishable under the same section. At the end of the defence case, the Appellant/Accused was found guilty by the trial Session judge, convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping. 1

2 [2] Dissatisfied, the Appellant/Accused filed an appeal before this court. The Public Prosecutor filed a cross-appeal on sentence. Having heard the submissions by both parties, this court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and the sentence by the learned trial judge. The crossappeal on sentence by the Public Prosecutor was consequently dismissed. [3] Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant/Accused filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on both conviction and sentence. The Public Prosecutor did not appeal on the sentence. [4] These are the grounds for the decision of this court. B. THE CHARGE [5] The charge against the accused was as follows: Bahawa kamu pada 29/8/2014 pada jam lebih kurang malam, bertempat di rumah beralamat L/500, Jalan Pengkalan Chepa, Kg. Surau Baung Hilir, Pengkalan Chepa dalam daerah Kota Bharu, dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah didapati merogol Nik Nur Aida binti Azlizan, KP tanpa kerelaannya dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan. 2

3 C. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE [6] The facts of the case are found at pages 19 to 24 of the Appeal Record in the grounds of judgment of the Sessions Judge and are set out in the following paragraphs. [7] On 29/8/2014 the Appellant/Accused telephoned the victim (SP1) to go out for dinner with him at a nearby restaurant. Whilst both of them were having dinner, the stepfather of SP1 telephoned and asked her to come home. Following the call, SP1 was sent home by the Appellant/Accused not to her house where she lived with her mother and the stepfather, but instead to her grandmother s house where she had lived in her early years when she was brought up by her grandmother. Coincidentally, the stepfather was there at the grandmother s house. Then, the Appellant/Accused left. [8] SP1 was scolded and reprimanded by the stepfather much to the dislike of SP1, who later left the house and went to a stall nearby, with her mobile phone switched off. Later on when she switched on her hand phone she saw a text message from the Appellant/Accused who informed her to go home to the mother s house to which she replied that she did not want to do so. [9] Upon receiving that message, the Appellant/Accused went to the stall at about 10 pm to persuade SP1 and to bring her back to his (Appellant s/accused) own house. Initially SP1 refused but after persuading her that his mother was at home, she agreed. Upon reaching the 3

4 Accused/Appellant s house at pm, the Appellant/Accused asked SP1 to wait outside whilst he entered the house alone. [10] He later came out of the house wearing only his jeans without a shirt on. He directed SP1 to wait at the store underneath the house. A moment later, whilst she was at the store, the Appellant/Accused pushed her into the store and latched the door. [11] The Appellant/Accused pulled down her jeans and undressed her. SP1 tried to shout but the Appellant/Accused closed her mouth with both hands. The Appellant/Accused then pulled down her jeans and her underwear. The Appellant/Accused then raped her by forcefully inserting his penis into her vagina for 5 minutes, even though the victim tried to shout and put up a struggle, but failed to stop him. [12] A check by SP5 (medical officer) confirmed that there was new hymen tear at 12, 2, 7 and 9 o clock. According to SP5, he concluded that it was a new tear because it happened less than 72 hours, and that it was caused by a blunt object such as a penis. D. INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE [13] The ingredients of the offence to be proved are: (i) (ii) The Appellant/Accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, SP1, The sexual intercourse was without her consent, and 4

5 (iii) There was penile penetration. E. FINDINGS OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE [14] The learned Session judge was satisfied that all the three elements of the offence were successfully proved by the prosecution and hence the Appellant/Accused was called to enter his defence. [15] In respect of penetration the learned judge said, at page 30 of the Appeal Record: Keterangan mangsa tentang kemasukan kemaluan OKT ke dalam kemaluannya adalah jelas. Semasa OKT memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan SP 9, OKT berada dekat lutut mangsa dan pada masa ini mangsa berada dalam keadaan berbaring dan kaki terkangkang. Mangsa nampak kemaluan OKT tegang semasa OKT nak masukan kemaluannya dalam kemaluan mangsa. Mangsa rasa sakit pada kemaluannya. Saya yakin dan percaya mangsa boleh membezakan antara kemaluan OKT masuk atau tidak ke dalam kemaluannya. [16] Regarding the element of force and involuntariness, the learned Sessions judge said at pages 30 and 31 of the Appeal Record: Berkait isu kerelaan, mangsa dengan jelas dalam keterangannya menjelaskan bahawa beliau tidak rela diperlakukan sebegitu rupa walaupun OKT merupakan teman lelaki beliau sejak 3 tahun lalu. 5

6 Menurut mangsa OKT memegang tangan mangsa dan mengheretnya masuk ke dalam stor dan menolak mangsa sehingga terjatuh terbaring atas lantai dalam stor. Walaupun mangsa berteriak tapi dengan kekuatan yang OKT ada beliau sempat menggunakan tangan mangsa untuk menutup mulut mangsa sendiri. [17] The learned judge also found that SP1 s evidence was amply corroborated by two doctors, SP4 and SP5. SP4 who examined the external part of SP1 found some abrasion on the victim s hand consistent with SP1 s evidence that her hands were restrained with extreme force. [18] For the evidence of SP5 the learned judge said at page 32 of the Appeal Record:- SP 5 pula adalah pegawai perubatan yang memeriksa vagina SP 9. Hasil pemeriksaan, SP 5 mendapati terdapat kesan koyakan baru pada hymen mangsa pada kedudukan jam 2, 5, 7, 9 dan 12. Menurut SP 5, untuk kes ini kemasukan berlaku akibat kurang rangsangan atau dipaksa dan koyakan yang banyak adalah akibat dari daya yang kuat digunakan. Dalam kes ini kesimpulan yang dibuat oleh SP 5 kejadian berlaku secara paksa. [19] According to the learned judge, other corroborative evidence came from the testimonies of SP7 and SP3, the mother of SP1. 6

7 [20] The learned judge also made a finding of fact that SP1, the victim, was a credible witness. This finding is found at page 30 of the Appeal Record: Saya telah melihat tingkah laku mangsa ketika memberi keterangan dan saya mendapati beliau adalah saksi yang jujur, berkredible dan boleh dipercayai. Tidak ada sebab untuk saya meragui keterangan mangsa mengenai isu bagaimana beliau dirogol oleh OKT. Keterangan beliau jelas dan tidak goyah walaupun disoal bertubi-tubi oleh peguam semasa pemeriksaan balas. Saya berpendapat bahawa tidak ada sebab untuk mangsa bercakap bohong bagi menganiayai OKT. [21] The learned judge after subjecting the prosecution s evidence to maximum evaluation was satisfied that a prima facie case was successfully proved. At page 32 of the Appeal Record he stated: Setelah membuat penelitian dan penilaian maksima ke atas keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan penghujahan oleh kedua-dua belah pihak, saya berpendapat bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh sebagaimana pertuduhan dan tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri. [22] The accused elected to give his evidence on oath. The learned judge had considered the evidence of the Accused/Appellant. The Accused/Appellant s defence was that the sexual intercourse was 7

8 voluntarily as it was a consensual act by both parties. However, the learned judge had doubts in his mind. At page 36 of the Appeal Record he stated: Secara kesimpulannya, pembelaan OKT tidak menafikan bahawa beliau berada bersama mangsa pada masa dan tempat sebagaimana di pertuduhan, malah tidak juga menafikan bahawa beliau ada melakukan hubungan seks dengan mangsa pada masa tersebut tetapi menurut OKT perhubungan seks antara beliau dan mangsa telah pun mendapat kerelaan mangsa. Itu sebenarnya pembelaan OKT memandangkan pada masa kejadian mangsa berumur 16 tahun 5 bulan dan kerelaan dari mangsa adalah merupakan satu isu yang sangat penting dalam kes ini. Namun begitu jika dirujuk kepada keterangan mangsa semasa kes pendakwaan di mana mangsa telah ditanya dengan panjang lebar oleh peguambela OKT semasa pemeriksaan balas, ternyata ianya bertentangan dengan apa yang dinyatakan oleh OKT malah keterangan mangsa juga telah disokong oleh dua keterangan perubatan iaitu dari SP 4 dan SP 5. [23] At the end of the defence case, the learned judge after subjecting both the defence s case and that of the prosecution to a maximum evaluation found that the Prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the Prosecution s case. Accordingly the Accused/Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping. 8

9 F. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT The Principles Regarding Appeal [24] The principle that apply in any appeals is clearly explained in the case of Ping Hun Sun V Dato Yip Yee Foo (2013) 1 LNS 320 where the court said: When the finding of the trial judge is factual, however, the fact finder's decision cannot be disturbed on appeal unless the decision of the fact finder is plainly wrong (see China Airline Ltd v. Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [1996] 3 CU 163); Zaharah bt A Kadir v. Ramuna Bauxite Pte Ltd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 1015, Kyros International Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2013] 3 CLJ 813; [2013] 1 LNS 1). The findings of fact of the trial judge can only be reversed when it is positively demonstrated to the appellate court that: (a) (b) (c) by reason of some non-direction or mis-direction or otherwise the judge erred in accepting the evidence which he or she did accept; or in assessing and evaluating the evidence the judge has taken into account some matter which he or she ought not to have taken into account, or failed to take into account some matter which he or she ought to have taken into account; or it unmistaken appears from the evidence itself, or from the unsatisfactory reasons given by the judge for accepting it, that 9

10 (d) he or she cannot have taken proper advantage of his or her having seen and heard the witnesses; or in so far aside judge has relied on manner and demeanor, there are other circumstances which indicate that the evidence of the witnesses which he or she accepted is not credible, as for instance, where those witnesses have on some collateral matter deliberately given an untrue answer." [25] In the case of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP & Another Appeal (2004) 3 CLJ 737 Abdul Hamid HMP (as he then was) said at page 752: Clearly, an appellate court does not and should not put a brake and not going any further the moment it sees that the trial judge says that is his finding of facts. It should go further and examine the evidence and the circumstances under which that finding is made to see whether, to borrow the words of HT Ong (CJ Malaya) in Herchun Singh's case (Supra) "there are substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing with the finding." Otherwise, no judgment would ever be reversed on question of fact and the provision of s. 87 CJA 1964 that an appeal may lie not only on a question of law but also on a question of fact or on a question of mixed fact and law would be meaningless. [26] See cases of Mahmad Bidin V PP (2016) 2 CLJ 131; (Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy V PP (2006) 4 SLR 45; Yap Giau Beng Terence V PP (1998) 3 SLR 656; Sakthivel Punithavathi V PP (2007) 2 SLR 983; PP V 10

11 Selvarajoo Ramachandran & Ors (2005) 6 CLJ 114; (2005) 5 MLJ 282, Sheo Swarup V King Emperor (1934) LR ). [27] The principle that can be distilled from these authorities is that the appellate court is under a duty to interfere when the trial court had seriously misdirected itself. [28] The Court of Appeal in Dato Yip Yee Foo s case (supra) also reminded that - (i) (ii) (iii) An accusation for rape can be made with ease; it is difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinised with extreme caution The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of the evidence for the defence. This court will adopt these principles in accessing all the evidence in the case. The analysis [29] This court agreed with the learned trial judge that the victim had sexual intercourse, without her consent as she was forced into the act. This could be seen from the outset of the case from the time she was asked to 11

12 wait for the Accused/Appellant at the store beneath the house. At page 51 of the Appeal Record he said: Shakir naik atas rumah dia dan minum. Saya tunggu di luar rumah. Shakir turun balik tanpa pakai baju. Dia pakai seluar jeans saja. Dia suruh saya tunggu dekat stor. Dia tolak saya saya masuk dalam stor. Saya jatuh terbaring atas lantai dalam stor. Stor, pintu terbuka sedikit, saya berada di hadapan pintu stor. Selepas itu, Shakir pun tolak saya. Masa itu dia belum tutup pintu. Kaki dia atas kaki saya, sebelah. Sebelah lagi dekat pintu. Dia peluk saya. Selepas itu, dia selak pintu, dia kemudian pecak seluar jeans dia. Mula-mula dia buka baju saya. Saya masa itu pakai baju kemeja. Dia buka satu butang, kemudian dia tarik semua. [30] The accused had used force on her by holding back her hands (as she was shouting) and used her own hands to shut her mouth and thereafter went on to undress her. At pages 51 to 52 of the Appeal Record, he stated: Selepas pada itu, dia pegang tangan saya sebab saya berteriak. Saya kata lepas. Saya berteriak Iebih kurang 2-3 minit. Bila berteriak, dia tutup mulut saya dengan guna tangan saya. Selepas itu, dia pecak seluar jeans saya, dia buka, buka butang zip, kemudian dia tarik seluar tersebut sampai ke buku lali. Saya pakai bra dan seluar dalam. Bra dia tidak tanggalkan, dia tarik seluar dalam bersama seluar jeans. 12

13 [31] The accused forcefully had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his penis into her vagina, hence there was a penile penetration. At page 52 of the Appeal Record it is stated that:- Kemudian dia masukkan kemaluan dia dalam kemaluan saya. Saya terbaring, Shakir dalam keadaan cangkung di bahagian peha saya. Kaki saya lurus ada sikit terkangkang. Sebelah tangan saya dipegang oleh Shakir dan sebelah lagi tangan saya di tepi peha. [32] SP1 saw the Accused/Appellant s penis hardened before penetrating inside her vagina for about 5 minutes. At page 52 of the Appeal Record:- Saya nampak kemaluan dia tegang semasa nak masukkan kemaluan dia dalam kemaluan saya. Dia masuk kemaluan dia dalam kemaluan saya lebih kurang 5 minit. Saya rasa sakit di bahagian kemaluan saya. Dia masukkan kemaluan dia dalam saya. Dia buat keluar balik. Dia masukkan kemaluan dia sekali sahaja. [33] SP1 testified that she did not consent but that it was forced on her by the accused, and there was no opportunity for her to run away or to resist him because of his strong physique. This was what she said:- Saya ada maklum saya tak mahu, dia cakap senyap. Saya macam nak pukul dia tetapi tidak berjaya. Sebab dia kuat pada saya. [34] She further reiriterated that the accused really used force on her to rape her. At page 53 of the Appeal Record, it was stated that: 13

14 Heret, memaksa saya, dia tolak saya dari luar ke dalam stor. Semasa itu saya ada lawan, saya cuba rentap tangan dia, saya tidak berjaya lawan, kekuatan dia lebih kuat dari tangan saya. [35] And at page 55: Saya ada usaha untuk keluar, apabila saya bangun, dia hempap badan saya. Saya tempik dia cakap diam. [36] SP1 when referred to the photographs of the place of incident i.e. the store shed, she identified it without hesitation and as explained at page 64 of the Appeal Record: ID8D dirujuk. Saya masuk ke bilik ini sacara paksa. Saya diheret dari gambar. Mula dari bahagian tempat mesin basuh. Saya cuba melawan dengan cara hentak tangan dia balik. Saya ada cuba lari dari tempat ini, keadaan gelap. Saya tidak tahu arah. [37] Under cross examination SP1 was consistent and unshaken in her testimony that the Accused/Appellant was forceful and had forced her to go on his motorcycle as he was adamant to bring her to his home, and had assured her on the pretext that it would be all right as his mother was at home. At page 67: Lepas dia mari, dia ajak naik motor dia, saya cakap saya tak nak pergi rumah dia. Dia heret saya naik atas motor dia. 14

15 [38] With this evidence, this court was convinced as found by the learned judge, that the accused had the design and motive to bring her home to sleep there on the pretext that the mother was at home and that SP1 would be introduced to her. However, unwittingly the counsel for the accused had reiterated this fact. At pages 67 to 68 of the Appeal Record: S: Setuju atau tidak dia cakap nak balik rumah dia, ibu dia ada? J: Setuju. S: Bila sampai rumah, kamu duduk dekat tangga, Shakir di mana? J: Dia naik atas rumah. S: Lampu dekat mana di rumah Shakir? J: Dekat tangga depan rumah. S: Berapa lama Shakir masuk dalam rumah? J: Sekejap sahaja, Iebih kurang 2 minit. S: Shakir pakai baju warna apa? J: Tak ingat. S: Apa kamu fikir? J: Saya ingat dia maklum ibu dia saya datang rumah dia dan nak tidur rumah dia. S: Sebab kamu tak masuk? J: Shakir suruh tunggu di luar. 15

16 S: Jarak stor dengan tempat kamu tunggu. J: Agak dekat 8-10 kaki. S: Kenapa dia tolak. J: Dia turun tanpa pakai baju. Saya tanya mak dia bagi atau tidak tidur rumah dia. Dia tak jawab. S: Pada ketika itu kamu harap untuk tidur rumah dia. J: Setuju. S: Kamu setuju tumpang tidur sebab kamu percaya Shakir sebab J: Ya. dia kekasih kamu. S: Katakan kamu dalam stor kamu tahu mak dia dalam rumah. J: Dia cakap mak dia ada dalam rumah. Saya duduk dan tak tahu mak dia ada atau tiada. S: Katakan kamu dalam stor, kamu tahu mak dia dalam rumah. J: Dia cakap mak dia ada dalam rumah. Saya duduk dan tak tahu mak dia ada atau tiada. [39] SP1 was found to be consistent and unshaken during crossexamination. In fact under cross-examination she further affirmed her testimony given during the examination-in-chief. At page 68 of the Appeal Record: 16

17 S: Ketika masuk dalam stor, pintu keadaan macam mana. J: Pintu tertutup, cahaya dari tangga nampak. [40] At page 69 of the Appeal Record: S: Pintu tak tutup rapat. J: Tak setuju. Pintu tertutup rapat, dia selak. S: Apa kamu buat? J: Mulut saya ditutup dengan tangan saya oleh Shakir. Saya cuba untuk melawan. S: Bila tengok dia tak ada baju, apa kamu fikir? J: Tak fikir apa-apa. S: Masa dia tarik seluar kamu, kamu dalam keadaan bagaimana. J: Baring. [41] At page 70 under cross examination she re-affirmed about the sexual intercourse: S: Ada nampak Shakir dalam stor. J: Nampak dalam samar. S: Ada nampak benda lain dalam stor. J: Tak nampak. 17

18 S: Kamu nampak dia buka seluar dia? J: Ya. Saya nampak dia buka seluar dia, selepas itu dia buka seluar saya. Muka saya menghadap pintu. S: Apa tindakan kamu ketika Shakir masukkan kemaluan dia. J: Saya lawan, cuba tepis tubuh dia dari tubuh saya. [42] This court also noted further the conduct of the accused in avoiding detection that they were inside the store by switching on the washing machine by washing only one piece of shirt as borne out in the crossexamination at page 69 of the Appeal Record: S: Ada bunyi mesin basuh. J: Sebelum masuk dalam stor dia masuk baju dalam mesin basuh, mesin basuh bunyi. [43] Under re-examination by the learned DPP, she reaffirmed that she agreed to follow the Accused/Appellant because she had an argument with her family, and that she was convinced that the Appellant/Accused s mother was at home, and that she would not have followed him if it were otherwise. This was what she said: S: Sebab apa kamu berharap nak tidur rumah Shakir. J: Saya kelahi dengan family. S: Kalau dia cakap mak tiada, adakah kamu akan pergi. J: Tak akan pergi. 18

19 [44] Under re-examination, again she affirmed that there was a sexual intercourse, and that it was forced on her by the Accused/Appellant. At page 72: S: Kamu jalan sendiri ke situ. J: Saya dipaksa, dia heret tangan, saya tanya ke mana, dia kata ke situ sebentar, dia heret saya. S: Dalam masa 5 minit, dia masuk kemaluan, kamu hanya tepis tapi tak lawan. J: Saya tepis tangan ke muka dia duduk atas peha saya. Saya cuba nak angkat kaki untuk bangun tapi tak berjaya sebab dia lawan saya. [45] With respect to the credibility of the SP1, the complainant, it is trite that this court should be slow in interfering with such finding of the credibility of the complainant as the trial judge was a better person to assess such finding (see Andy Baginda v PP (2003) 3 MLJ 644). From the totality of the evidence given by SP1, this court agreed with the finding of fact made by the trial judge that she was a credible witness and needed no corroboration. This was fortified by the fact that her evidence was consistent throughout the trial where she had narrated in detail what actually transpired as could be seen from the assessment of the evidence made earlier on by this court which found that there was a non-consensual and non-voluntary sexual intercourse. 19

20 [46] She was not shaken during cross examination and in fact the cross examination reaffirmed the incident. Her evidence was very probable (see PP v Mohd Bandar Shah Bin Nordin (2008) 4 MLJ 556) and was unusually convincing (PP v Mardai (1950) 1 MLJ 33 and PP v Mohamad Liton Syed Malik (2008). The lack of cross-examination by the defence further affirmed that the involuntary sexual intercourse did take place which reaffirmed the factual matrix of the case (Brabakaran v PP (1966) 1 MLJ 64). Furthermore, there was no motive or any reasons for her to lie in court to make the Accused/Appellant culpable. [47] Whilst this court agreed that her evidence was very strong, unusually convincing and very probable which in itself did not require any corroboration, however this court was very satisfied that her evidence was amply corroborated by the two medical officers. [48] The evidence of SP5, Dr. Mohd Irwan Kamarudin (gynecologist), who testified that there were new hymen tears found in the positions of 2, 5, 7, 9 and 12 o clock indicated that excessive force was exerted, and that the penetration that happened was without stimulation, all cumulatively indicating that the sexual intercourse was through force and that it was not voluntary. [49] SP5 said at page 73 of the Appeal Record: Pesakit datang dengan mak. Dia dirujuk kerana kes rogol. Saya ada periksa pesakit pada bahagian kemaluan vulva dan vagina. 20

21 Hasil pemeriksaan: Pada bahagian hymen, ada beberapa kesan koyakan dara baru pada kedudukan 12, 2, 5, 7, 9. Saya ada diserah laporan siasatan awal. Mahkamah: ID5 dirujuk dan dicamkan. Tarikh pada ID , kerana pada waktu dirujuk rawatan hingga jam 1.50 pagi. ID5 muka surat 2 dan 3, saya sendiri yang isi. ID5 muka surat 2, hyperenia, ada kesan merah sebab kecederaan. Kesan baru, dari sejarah pesakit tidak pernah ada hubungan seks. Kesan baru, ada kesan merah. Tempoh masa kesan baru 72 jam (kurang). [50] At page 74 of the Appeal Record, he said: Kesan lama lebih dari 72 jam, untuk kes ini kemasukan berlaku akibat kurang rangsangan atau dipaksa. Koyakan banyak, daya yang kuat digunakan. Koyakan ini boleh disebabkan kemasukan objek tumpul, kemasukan zakar. Ada buat laporan rasmi. Mahkamah: Laporan perubatan dirujuk dan dicamkan. Ditandakan sebagai P9. [51] SP5 was consistent throughout the cross examination. Regarding the report ID-5 (later P5) on the occurrence of reddish Hyprenia in the vagina, SP5 said at page 75 of the Appeal Record: 21

22 Q: Rujuk ID5. Muka surat 2 diagram B. Hyprenia. Setuju atau tidak tanpa paksaan benda ini boleh berlaku. A: Tak setuju. Kena ada paksaan. Q: Benda ini akan jadi merah jika tiada lubricant. A: Salah satu. [52] He went on to state: Q: Apabila merah, paksaan atau tiada ransangan. A: Setuju. [53] Under re-examination at page 76 of the Appeal Record, he confirmed that the sexual intercourse was done involuntary or by force. Hence a rape had occured. At page 76 of the Appeal Record he said:- Q: Dalam kes ini selepas buat pemeriksaan, kes ini berlaku macam mana? A: Secara paksa. [54] The evidence of SP1 was further corroborated by SP4, Dr. Tuan Iftitah bin Tuan Ismail, the doctor who conducted external physical examination on SP1. SP4 found that there were significant signs of abrasion found on the hands of SP1 which he recorded in P6 at page 2. 22

23 [55] At page 63 of the Appeal Record, he stated: Ini kerana kecederaan yang saya maksudkan kecederaan boleh disebabkan oleh benda tumpul seperti dipegang oleh orang secara paksa. [56] This court noted that there was no cross-examination of SP4 by the defence, thus confirming the fact that there existed an element of physical force being exerted on SP1 on the day of the incident. Thus the facts of the rape were firmly established. [57] The other corroborative evidence came from SP3, the mother of SP1 who testified that she saw abrasions on the left hand of SP1. When asked SP1 explained to her that those were caused by the Appellant/Accused. [58] The other corroborative evidence was obtained by the subsequent conduct of SP1 herself when she testified that on the next day she went to look for the Accused/Appellant and reported the incident to his parents. She also told the incident to her grandmother. This subsequent conducts were relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act and it afforded strong corroborative evidence. At page 52 & 53 of the Appeal Record it was stated: Malam itu saya tak bagitahu sesiapa tentang kejadian ini. Sebab saya takut kena marah oleh keluarga. Esoknya saya tak beritahu lagi family saya. Lebih kurang jam 4.30 petang, saya ke rumah Shakir untuk beritahu saya dirogol oleh Shakir kepada ibu/bapa Shakir. 23

24 Saya beritahu ibu Shakir. Selepas itu ibu Shakir tanya Shakir tetapi dia tidak mengaku. Ibu dia minta jangan lapor kepada polis. Kemudian ayah Shakir balik, juga maklum kepada saya jangan buat laporan. Mereka akan selesaikan masalah ini. Kemudian ayah Shakir dan bapa saudara Shakir hantar saya ke rumah nenek saya. Saya kemudian beritahu nenek saya dirogol. Nenek kemudian tanya Shakir tetapi dia tidak mengaku. Shakir kemudian mengaku, ayah Shakir suruh saya kahwin dengan Shakir tetapi saya tak mahu. Ibu saudara Tuan Suriati talipon ibu saya, Tuan Fatmawati untuk beritahu saya dirogol Shakir. lbu saudara kemudian maklum kepada ibu saya. Kemudian ibu/ayah saya suruh buat repot. Pada sebelah malam buat repot di Balai Polis Pengkalan Chepa. Saya sendiri yang buat laporan polis. [59] On the bases of those findings this court was satisfied that the Session s Judge had made the following correct findings. At page 32, of the Appeal Record, this was what he said: SP5 pula adalah pegawai perubatan yang memeriksa vagina SP9. Hasil pemeriksaan, SP5 mendapati terdapat kesan koyakan baru pada hymen mangsa pada kedudukan jam 2, 5, 7, 9 dan 12. Menurut SP5, untuk kes ini kemasukan berlaku akibat kurang rangsangan atau dipaksa dan koyakan yang banyak adalah akibat dari daya yang kuat digunakan. Dalam kes ini kesimpulan yang dibuat oleh SP5 kejadian berlaku secara paksa. Keterangan sokongan seterusnya datang dari SP7 yang menyatakan bahawa mangsa ada memaklumkannya bahawa OKT telah merogolnya dan SP7 pula 24

25 memaklumkan perkara ini kepada ibu mangsa dan ayah tiri mangsa. Keterangan SP3, iaitu ibu mangsa sendiri juga mengesahkan bahawa beliau ternampak kesan lebam di tangan kiri mangsa dan apabila bertanya kepada mangsa, mangsa menjawab bahawa ianya adalah kesan pegangan OKT. [60] After subjecting the prosecution s case to a maximum evaluation, this court agreed that the prosecution had proved a prima facie case against the Appellant/Accused. Hence, the accused was called upon to enter his defence. The Defence [61] This court had critically analyzed the evidence of the defense. [62] The Appellant/Accused did not deny that he had a sexual intercourse with SP1, but claimed that as they were lovers, the intercourse was consensual. He denied SP1 s assertion that he forced himself on her. [63] The Appellant/Accused s defence was antithetical to that of the prosecution s case as regards the facts when the accused and SP1 reached the house of the accused. According to the accused it was SP1 who wanted to be at his house for the night and that SP1 did not want to go home. 25

26 [64] He further testified that it was SP1 who wanted to go to the store room beneath the house to rest and she was not forced by him. At page 90 of the Appeal Record it is stated: Aida tak mahu balik. Kemudian dia cakap tak apa duduk dekat situ. Kemudian Aida pergi duduk dalam stor, saya jalan dulu. Aida di belakang saya. Aida nak masuk dalam stor sebab takut ada orang nampak. Rumah saya tepi jalan besar. Masuk dalam stor saya masuk dulu. Kemudian hampar alas meja. Aida ada di belakang saya dan juga masuk dalam stor. Aida kemudian duduk atas alas meja yang saya hampar. Saya pun duduk juga. Dalam stor ada baja, tangga, tempat ayam tidur. Ada lampu dalam stor tapi ada cahaya dari lampu jalan masuk dalam stor. Pintu stor tak berkunci. [65] The Accused further gave evidence that he made advancement when he found that SP1, whilst putting her head on him, had already unbuttoned her shirt. He likewise did the same and later both of them opened their trousers and finally both of them had sex together voluntarily. There was no element of force nor rejection on the part of SP1. [66] At page 90 of the Appeal Record, he said: Kepala Aida tidur atas saya masa ini. Aida dah pecak kancing baju dia. Saya kemudian pecak baju saya. Kami bercakap-cakap dalam stor lebih kurang 1/2 jam. Aida pecat seluar dia, kemudian saya pecak seluar saya. Saya kemudian buat seks. Reaksi Aida biasa saja, maksud biasa Aida duduk senyap. Hubungan seks berlaku lebih 26

27 kurang 15 minit. Selepas hubungan seks, kami bercakap, masih dalam stor. Saya nak hantar dia balik. Tetapi Aida tak mahu balik. Kemudian saya pujuk, esok ayah saya balik, akan pergi pinang Aida. Aida masih tak mahu balik. [67] He further testified that no rejection, nor regret, was shown by SP1 towards him after the incident until he sent her home. In fact he testified that he told SP1 that he will ask her father the next day to make a proposal (pinang) to SP1 s family. At page 91, he said: Kemudian bila rasa agak panas dalam stor. Kami keluar dan duduk atas tangga dapur. Saya masih pujuk Aida untuk balik. Saya cakap esok saya akan minta ayah saya pergi pinang dia. Aida fikir sejenak dan setuju untuk balik. Saya kemudian ambil motor, Aida naik atas motor dan saya hantar dia balik. Waktu ini jam lebih kurang malam. Apabila sampai rumah dia, Aida turun motor, buka pintu pagar dan saya kemudian balik ke rumah saya, tidur. [68] Under cross cross-examination, the Appellant/Accused maintained that the sexual intercourse was not forced on SP1, instead it was consensual. This was what he testified under cross examination. At page of the Appeal Record he said:- S: Apa kamu buat? J: Cakap dengan dia, suruh dia balik, dia jawab tak mahu. Dia tidur di tepi saya. 27

28 S: Kemungkinan dia buka butang, sebab panas. J: Mungkin. S: Aida ada melawan? J: Tak melawan, dia duduk senyap. S: Ada tanya dia? J: Tak tanya, dia duduk senyap saja. S: Setuju/tidak, diam tak semestinya, suka? J: Tak setuju. S: Ada pegang dia? J: Ada, peluk tubuh dia, dekat bahu dia. Dia duduk senyap saja. Masa ini Aida dan saya tengah baring. Kami keadaan mengiring. S: Masa ini Aida pakai apa? J: Tak pakai. S: Berapa lama buat seks? J: Lebih kurang 15 minit, sepanjang 15 minit Aida diam sahaja. S: Ada dia melawan? J: Tak ada. 28

29 S: Selepas buat seks, apa kamu buat? J: Pakai baju batik dan keluar dari stor. [69] In order to corroborate his evidence, the Appellant/Accused called her mother to testify as defence witness (SD2). Nothing much could be gathered from her testimony except for the evidence of SP1 coming to the house on a motorcycle on the next day with another person looking for the Appellant/Accused, but the Appellant/Accused was not at home. Later when the Appellant/Accused came home, they had conversation until 5.pm. Thereafter Shakir s father sent her home. She did not elaborate further. [70] Against that evidence from the Defence, the learned judge made the following finding of fact as envisaged at pages 37 and 38 of the Appeal Record. This was what he said:- Sekiranya betul apa yang dinyatakan oleh OKT dalam keterangan bela dirinya bahawa mangsa tidak membantah segala perlakuan semasa kejadian ini maka saya yakin mangsa tidak akan datang semula untuk mencari OKT di rumah OKT esok harinya dan mangsa juga tidak akan membuat laporan polls terhadap OKT berkait kejadian ini kerana kedua-dua mereka adalah sepasang kekasih. Tidak dinafikan dalam kes ini mangsa telah lari dari rumah dan tindakan OKT datang mengambil mangsa dan membawa balik ke rumahnya adalah satu tindakan yang baik. Setelah mangsa diyakinkan oleh OKT bahawa ibu OKT berada di rumah maka mangsa memberi persetujuan ke rumah OKT atas alasan untuk menumpang tidur. Namun begitu setelah sampai di rumahnya telah 29

30 mula jelas niat tidak baik OKT terhadap mangsa apabila OKT tidak Iangsung memberitahu ibunya akan kehadiran mangsa ke rumah mereka pada malam tersebut. Ibu OKT (SD2) dalam keteranganya di mahkamah menyatakan beliau tidak tahu tentang kehadiran mangsa ke rumahnya pada malam tersebut. OKT sepatutnya membawa mangsa berjumpa ibunya dan menceritakan keadaan mangsa pada ketika itu tetapi apa yang terjadi sebaliknya. OKT telah mengambil kesempatan terhadap mangsa dengan mengheret dan menolak mangsa masuk ke dalam stor sehingga mangsa jatuh terbaring dalam stor tersebut. Tindakan mangsa merentap tangan OKT untuk tidak diheret masuk ke dalam stor tidak berjaya kerana menurut mangsa beliau tidak mampu mengatasi kekuatan yang ada pada OKT. Rentetan keterangan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa dari awal lagi mangsa tidak merelakan apa yang dibuat oleh OKT kepada beliau. [71] At page 38 of the Appeal Record the learned judge made the following finding: Setelah membuat penilaian yang maksima terhadap keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh OKT bersama-sama dengan keterangan yang dikemukakan semasa kes pendakwaan, mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pembelaan OKT adalah tidak munasabah dan merupakan satu rekaan oleh OKT semata-mata serta gagal untuk menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes 30

31 pendakwaan. Oleh itu mahkamah mendapati OKT bersalah dan disabitkan sepertimana pertuduhan. [72] This court had perused the Appeal Record and made a critical analysis of the findings of the learned judge. The defence of the accused was a mere denial against the strong evidence of SP1, corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. This court agreed with the finding of the learned judge that the defence of the Appellant/Accused was highly improbable which went against logics, and hence there was no reason for this court to interfere. This court found that his findings were correct and safe. In the upshot, this court affirmed the conviction recorded and dismissed the appeal on conviction. G. SENTENCE [73] Counsel for the Accused/Respondent in mitigation submitted that the Accused/Respondent at the time of the offence was a young offender i.e. just reached 21 years old and the youngest children in his family. He contributed to the family s household income because the father works as a labourer and the mother a housewife. The learned counsel further submitted that the Appellant/Accused and SP1 are lovers. He had repented and felt remorsed. [74] The learned DPP in submitting for a severe punishment submitted that rape is a serious offence. Though both of them are lovers, the Appellant/Accused had taken advantage of her being a naïve and immature girl. The DPP further submitted that public interest warrants that the 31

32 punishment to be meted out to be severe in the sense that it reflects the seriousness and public abhorrence to this offence. [75] The learned Session s Judge after considering the submissions by both parties sentenced the Appellant/Accused to 12 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping. [76] This court had perused the grounds of judgment of the learned judge and found that the decision was fair and safe, hence intervention of this court was unwarranted. [77] This court was of the considered view that the learned judge was correct when applying the sentencing principle whereby the public interest is of paramount importance and should supercede the interest of the Accused/Appellant. This court was of the considered view that by sentencing him to 12 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping, the Court is sending the right message to the public. This court views the Accused/Appellant s conduct in this case as a person taking advantage of the vulnerability and naiveness of the complainant/sp1 by reason of her young age and her close relationship with the Accused/Appellant and this should not be condoned. [78] The Learned Judge had rightly directed his mind on the sentencing trend for this type of offence. In Peilis Sami vs PP (2014) 6 CLJ 670 the Accused/Respondent was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and 5 strokes of whippings. In the case of Riduan Mahmud vs PP (2015) 1 LNS 449, the Accused was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and 2 strokes 32

33 of whippings. In Nelson Gunasegaram vs PP (2010) 3 CLJ 561, the Accused was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Hence the present trend shows that the sentence imposed are between 10 years to 12 years imprisonment and whipping. Hence the learned judge was right in sentencing him for 12 years and 2 strokes of whipping. H. CONCLUSION [79] As this court found that there was no appealable error committed by the learned judge and that the decision was safe, in the upshot, the appeal against conviction and sentence by the Accused/Appellant are hereby dismissed and the decision of the learned judge was affirmed. The cross appeal on sentence by the Public Prosecutor was accordingly dismissed. Order accordingly, Dated: 20 Ogos 2017 (DATO AHMAD BIN BACHE) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kota Bharu 33

34 Pendakwa Raya/ Responden - Puan Ainul Wardah binti Shahidan Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, Kota Bharu, Kelantan Perayu/Peguambela - Puan Latifah binti Ariffin Tetuan Latifah Ariffin & Co, Lot 1105, Seksyen 52, Jalan Dato Lundang, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. 34