SAITO SECURITY ACADEMY

BACHELOR OF ARTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

(INVESTIGATION) (HONS)

STUDENT NAME: YUVENTHRAN A/L GUNASEGARAN

STUDENT ID: 2021233-01-26025
COHORT NO: BLEIA45
SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW
SUBJECT CODE: LEI 1044
The case I choose for this assignment is MOHAMMAD SYUKRI BIN RAMLI [2019].
Mohammad Syukri bin Ramli, the accused, was charged with robbery in Kampung Jalong,
Sungei Siput, on 30.6.2018 around 9.00pm. He had used a one-and-a-half-foot parang to steal ten
people of their cellphones. He was charged with violating Sections 392 and 397 of the Penal
Code (PC; Act 574). Biswas Md Aminur (Biswas; SP1) and Bhuiyan Mohammad Shabuj
(Shabuj; SP4)., both Bangladeshi nationals, were the victims. The actus reus of this crime is
attempted robbery when armed with dangerous weapon, a one-and-a-half-foot parang and with
attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The mens rea of this case is the stealing of another's
property in their presence using violence, force, or threat with the intention to permanently
deprive them of it where Syukri intent to robs Biswas and Shabuj and threat them using a
weapon.

The court(s) this case held was Sessions Court, and then brought up to High Court. The facts of
this case are, the incident took place on that awful night, when Biswas and Shabuj were in their
room when the accused came in. He went up to Biswas and insisted that he hand up his phone.
After obtaining the hand phone, the accused turned to Shabuj to obtain his hand phone as well.
Biswas grabbed him from behind as he had his back to Biswas. During the battle with the
accused swinging the parang, Shabuj managed to get it away from him, hurting his hands in the
process.
When Biswas's sarung was undone as a result of the wrestling, the accused were able to flee the
room. It was short-lived, as he was apprehended by Biswas in the house's dining/living room and
pushed into the living area, where other housemates had shut the front door to prevent him from
fleeing. He was taken out of the home from here. Biswas and his friends were successful in tying
his legs, but they were released when a throng of villagers who had assembled told them to do
so. It was at this point that the accused managed to get away.
He attempted to flee into an area behind the home, but Biswas and a few others, including a
critical witness, Suhaimi bin Umar 15, chased him (SP7). When the accused was apprehended
again, he was taken back to the front of the house and his legs were bound once more, this time
with raffia strings. The police were dispatched and the culprit was taken into custody. He was
arrested and the police confiscated his sling bag, which included a few goods like a wire cutter,
two Nokia hand phones, a SIM card, and a t-shirt, among others. In addition to these discoveries,
the damning parang was discovered.
The accused stated that the wire clipper discovered in the backpack belonged to him since he
worked as an air-condition technician, in direct opposition to charges that he was unemployed.
During his trial, the accused claimed that he resided just behind the victim's residence. He
recalled that he had been out with his friends at Ulu Kuang, Sungei Siput, earlier in the evening,
from around 5 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. He rode his motorcycle back to his house and parked it in
front of his residence. When he finished, he took his shirt off and threw his bag over one
shoulder.
When he heard a disturbance coming from the victim's residence, he decided to investigate and
made his way to a house that was not far away from the scene. After arriving on the scene, he
was seized and detained by Biswas, who accused him of committing robbery. So, to summaries:
The defense of the accused was that he was alerted to some sort of disturbance and went to
investigate. As soon as he arrived, he was detained by Biswas, who accused him of robbing him
and his companion and holding him against his will. The accused maintained his position that he
had been mistaken for the robber. Was it a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,
as is often the case? Apart from that, the defense attorney pointed out mistakes in the case, which
had been subjected to the testimony of seven prosecution witnesses and one defense witness. A
list of the alleged mistakes is provided in the following paragraphs, along with a brief discussion
of each where necessary.
The prosecution proceeded with the charges identified in Lampiran E and F, Jilid 1, pursuant to
Section 392 of the Penal Code read in conjunction with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. It was read and explained to the accused each and every time the charges were changed
(whether they were added or amended), since he had constantly asserted the right to a trial on the
new or amended charges. The law allows for the modification of accusations if the accused is not
disadvantaged as a result of the change, and justice is not rendered ineffective as a result. In the
current case, no such prejudice has been proven either before the lower court or before this court
by the accused or his lawyers. The accused, via his counsel, was given the opportunity to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses for an extended period of time, both before and after the
charges were amended. The new accusations were also read and explained to the accused in
accordance with Provision 158(2) CPC, which is a necessity under that section. On the record, it
is also obvious that no application has been made by the accused or his or her counsel to recall
witnesses in connection with the amendment and addition of charges according to Section 162 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. This, too, indicates that the accused has not been denied the ability
to defend himself, so indicating that his right to a fair trial has been upheld. He was able to
effectively advance his defense via the efforts of his attorney, who had cross-examined all
prosecution witnesses, including the victims, SP1 and SP4, for an extended period of time.
Notwithstanding the alleged gaps in the evidence produced by the defense, the prosecution has a
compelling case against the accused, supported by trustworthy evidence. The sessions court
judge (SCJ) came to the conclusion that Shabuj (SP4) was a reliable witness who provided a
consistent sequence of the events that occurred that night in question. Suhaimi bin Umar (SP7),
who chased after the accused when he was freed from his restraints, confirmed that he never lost
sight of the accused during the chase. This gives validity to the uncontested fact that it was the
accused who was tied up and fled away as soon as he was untied, only to be apprehended later in
the investigation.
Based on the foregoing finding of fact, it is unavoidable for the SCJ to determine that the
prosecution has proven the elements of a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon to with
parang. As a result, there was robbery with the use of parang to extort SP1 and SP4; hand phones
were robbed by the accused; and he had injured SP4 while performing robbery. As a result, a
prima facie case has been established. The nagging issue of the accused person's identification
was resolved when the SCJ determined that the accused who was caught red-handed by SP1 and
SP4, and later freed himself, could not escape but was caught by SP7 in the living room, and that
his movement was never missed by any of them, including SP1 and SP4. The prosecution has so
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has been positively identified. Along with
identification at the crime site, the accused is also identified at the dock, by both SP1 and SP4.
Dock identification is akin to presenting substantial proof.
An imprisonment sentence of ten years for each of the charges brought against the accused, to
begin concurrently, followed by three strokes of the whip for each charge, for a total of six
strokes, and on top of that, the accused was ordered to pay RM2000 in prosecution costs, with a
default sentence of four months in prison if he does not do so.
Aside from the objections made by the accused in the case, he has filed an appeal against the
sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, claiming that it was excessive and unproportioned to
the crime committed. Later on, the sentence reduced by High Court. Conviction affirmed. Term
of imprisonment reduced to five years for each charge and to take effect concurrently. Number of
strokes of whipping reduced to 2strokes for each charge, adding up to 4strokes. Order made for
costs of prosecution to be paid by accused is set aside. This was the reduced sentence of the case.
In my opinion, the sentence produce by the SCJ was far more accurate and justify compare to the
updated sentence by the high Court. The updated sentence was lenient. The reduced sentence is
giving some hopes to all the criminals that doing awful activities around our nation. The
judgment was too linear to the accused. There are record shows that Mohammad Syukri has a lot
of criminal record even before this case and he also had tasted the smell of prison before this
some other case. This shows that, he still continuing his crime activities even after got the
convention. So that, in my view Syukri should get an even harsh judgment to realize his mistakes
and to make an impact in our society.
In order to give some suggestions for an appreciate sentencing, I would like to take Singapore’s
jurisdiction as reference. Where deterrence and appropriate punishment should, in general, take
precedence over rehabilitation for adult criminals. Adult criminals are not eligible for
reformative training as a sentencing alternative. As long as the prerequisites are met, CBS may
be enforced. Probation is a punishment alternative for adult criminals who commit specific
crimes, although it is only used in rare situations, such as when the offender shows a particularly
strong proclivity for change or when other extraordinary circumstances merit probation.
When considering an offender's rehabilitative potential, the courts will normally examine the
following considerations. Whether or if the offender has shown a genuine wish to reform. For
example, the Courts will evaluate whether an offender demonstrates real regret by collaborating
with and surrendering to authorities, pleading guilty, or making restitution. When examining the
offender's intention to reform, the courts will consider the entirety of his actions. Whether or if
the circumstances are favorable to assisting the offender in turning over a new leaf. This is a
component that all offenders must consider, regardless of their socioeconomic standing or
familial history. This might include things like familial support or social support. Even if the
offender has shown a great desire to rehabilitate, the Court must finally assess the nature and
seriousness of the offence in order to determine whether the emphasis on deterrence and
commensurate punishment should be maintained.
In conclusion, our jurisdiction is a justice serving place but we need to make some important
change to decrease the crime rate in our nation by giving some harsh sentencing. This would
make an impact on our current generation where they would afraid to commit any crime due to
the harassment on the sentencing. To make a peaceful place to be, we need to have a boldness in
our judgements and need to eliminate whoever being the barrier to the peace.