The light sentence of a good behavior bond for five years imposed on Datin Rozita Mohamed Ali by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court for seriously abusing and injuring her Indonesian maid has drawn severe criticism and condemnation as the said injuries were severe and the said sentence comes across as a mere slap on the wrists for an offence most vile.
The charge against Rozita was initially one of attempted murder which was subsequently amended to one under section 326 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grevious hurt by dangerous weapons or means which carries, amongst others, punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years. Rozita pleaded guilty to the said amended charge.
The Star Online yesterday reported that Rozita had allegedly used a kitchen knife, a steel mop, a clothes hanger and an umbrella on her said maid which allegedly caused multiple injuries to the maid’s head, hands, legs and internal organs.
With respect, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Court judge fell into error in imposing the said sentence as the law no longer provides for a good behavior bond in cases which involve serious offences which is defined in the Penal Code as an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.
There is no doubt that an offence under the said section 326 which is punishable with a term of imprisonment which may extend to twenty years comes within the said definition of a serious offence.
The position above came about as a result of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in 2016 vide the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2016 which expressly excludes the option of binding over a convicted person on a good behavior bond under sections 173A and 294 thereof where the said person is charged with a serious offence.
The said amendments also do not expressly apply retrospectively and as such, were in force and applicable when Rozita was sentenced. In the circumstances, it is clear that the said learned Sessions Court judge acted out of jurisdiction in imposing the said sentence on Rozita as the said sections 173A and 294 of the CPC no longer allowed him to do so.
In light of the above, I am of the view that the sentence imposed on Rozita is clearly illegal and ought to be revised by the High Court which must be done immediately in the interests of justice. It is common knowledge that a High Court judge has the power to revise such decisions from a lower court even in the absence of an application by any party as he may do so on his own. Alternatively, the Public Prosecutor ought to file an application to revise the said sentence urgently as same cannot stand and I urge the Attorney General to do so forthwith.
The Indonesian embassy also ought to be aware of this anomaly and demand the said sentence be revised immediately.
The offence which Rozita pleaded guilty to is a serious one and it is hoped that all factors are properly considered when her current sentence is revised and substituted with a sentence in accordance with law.