-

1. 1
‘AGGRAVATE ME’ - SAMPEL SENIOR
Peringatan:
⎯ Tukar ayat diwarna biru kepada ayat anda sendiri mengikut fakta kes.
⎯ [Ayat berbentuk begini adalah arahan.]
Majistret : Jurubahasa, ada berapa kes pada hari ini?
Jurubahasa : Ada satu kes tangkap untuk sebutan, Tuan/Puan.
Majistret : Teruskan.
Jurubahasa : Di dalam Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur, Kes Jenayah No 12-12/2013,
Pendakwaraya melawan Samad Tuan bin Jebat.
Pendakwa Raya : Tuan Majistret, saya Nurul Huda binti Shafee, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya,
yang akan menjalankan pendakwaan kes ini dan rakan bijaksana saya, Cik
Halimah Saadiyah binti Abdul Rahmah bagi pihak pembelaan. OKT hadir
dan berada di kandang tertuduh. Saya mohon izin agar pertuduhan dibacakan
kepada tertuduh. Tuan Majistret.
Majistret : Jurubahasa, bacakan pertuduhan.
Jurubahasa : Encik Saman bin Jebat?
OKT : Saya.
Jurubahasa : Saya bacakan pertuduhan.
Bawaha kamu, Encik Samad Tuah bin Jebat, No- Kad Pengenalan …
[baca pertuduhan secara menyeluruh].
Adakah kamu faham pertuduhan ini?
OKT : Ya, saya faham.
Majistret : Encik Samad, kamu mengaku bersalah atau minta dibicarakan?
OKT : Saya mengaku salah, Yang Arif.
Majistret : Adakah kamu faham kesalahan kamu boleh [baca hukuman bagi
kesalahan].
OKT : Ya, Tuan. Saya faham.
Majistret : Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, teruskan.
Pendakwa Raya : Tuan Majistret, saya mohon untuk kemukakan fakta kes dan dibacakan kepada
tertuduh.
Jurubahasa : [baca fakta kes].
Adakah kamu faham fakta kes yang saya bacakan, dan mengakuinya

2. 2
OKT : Ya. Saya faham. Saya mengaku.
: Tuan Majistret. Saya mohon mengemukakan barang-barang kes.
Majistret : Dibenarkan. Teruskan.
Pendakwa Raya : Saya kemukakan barang-barang kes seperti berikut.
[baca senarai barang kes kecuali fakta kes dan pertuduhan].
Itu sahaja Tuan.
Majistret : Mahkamah dengan ini mendapati kamu bersalah dan disabitkan di bawah
pertuduhan Seksyen [baca seksyen disabitkan].
Sebelum mahkamah jatuhkan hukuman, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, ada apa-
apa yang ingin diperkatakan?
Pendakwa Raya : Hujahan Faktor Pemberatan (Aggravating Factors)
Tuan Magistrate, the number of stolen motorbike cases in the area of
Wilayah Persekutuan Mosque had increased recently. The incident
usually occurred on Friday during the Friday prayer. I believe, to avoid
this stolen motorbike from reoccuring, a heavier punishment shall be
imposed to give nocie to all who has the tendency to commit the same
crime.
Even though this is the first time the accused person committed a crime,
I would like to submit that stolen motorbike rates the highest number of
cases in Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia in general.
An equivalentor in kind punishment is not only appropriate toward the
accused person, but it also to deter the same commission of crime
besides able to educate the community out there to avoid from doing
such an offence.
In the case of Cheong Ah Cheow v PP, the judges is of view that on the
offence of soccer gambling and betting are too frequently done that the
punishment imposed by the Magistrate was necessary upon the accused
as a warning towards other individual who has the inclination to commit
the same offence.
In the case of Ng Ah Tak v PP, the court had taken into consideration that
the public interest is the paramount consideration to.

3. 3
Furthermore Tuan Magistrate, the case of Lee Chow Meng v PP
mentioned that the court took judicial notice on the increasing number of
armed robbery in Kuala Lumpur by imposing a heavier punishment upon
the accused person.
In our present case, even though the accused did not have any previous
record, the fact that offence committed shall subject to a mandatory
imprisonment and the increasing number of stolen motorbike has to be
taken into courts attention.
Thus, I seek rom the court to impose or sentence the accused person
reasonably and equivalently to the office he had committed.
Itu sahaja hujahan saya, Tuan Majistret.
Majistret : Peguam Bela?
Peguam Bela : Tuan Majistret, I plead to the court to hear the plea of mitigation by the accused
person on the punishment or sentence that will befall against him by the court.
These are his plea of mitigation.
First, the accused beg to this honourable court to sentence him for minimum
period of imprisonment. His guilty plea had saved the court’s time. There is no
requirement for the witnesses to be called besides there is no need for cost to
be incurred as allowances for the witnesses. In the case of Melvani v PP, it
was held that the guilty plea is one of the factors for a valid mitigation as it
saves and did not involve any attendance of witnesses.
Tuan, this is the very first offence committed by the accused. He had never
been caught in any investigation before this and what more being convicted for
an offence. Therefore Tuan, the facts that the OKT has no previous records of
any previous offence shall be taken into consideration by the court as a factor
to lessen his sentence or punishment.
In the case of Shanmuganathan v PP, a lighter sentence is taken into
consideration by the court when the accused it is a first time offender and the
accused has no previous record of committing crime.
Tuan Majistret, the accused person is the eldest of 4 siblings. After the death of

4. 4
the father, accused is now responsible in taking care of his mother and
younger siblings. The accused earns RM1,150/month as a dispatch and office
boy besides a helper for the poultry seller in the market. The accused had just
gotten a job. He also has to take care of his sickly mother.
If imprisonment is imposed on him, his mother will lost her place to rely on. On
the day of the event, the accused was so desperate as he needed a motorbike
to deliver the company’s documents. His own motorbike had to be sent to the
workshop for repairmen. He could not redeem his motorbike as he had no
money to do so. Thus, he took the motorbike belonging to the complainant.
However, the complainant had made a police report and when the accused
was about to return the bike, he was caught by the ‘jemaah masjid’.
Tuan, on the fact that the accused person had not change the plat no nor the
shape of the motorbike showed that he had the intention to return the bike to its
owner.
In the case of PP v Idris, it was held that section 294 applicable to cases where
the punishment for the offences is imprisonment. In other words, the mitigation
mention under section 294 of Criminal Procedure Code applicable to Section
379A which only connotes mandatory imprisonment.
We humbly request to this honourable court for the accused to be discharged
and to be allowed for bond of good behaviour under section 294 Criminal
Procedure Code.
Pendakwa Raya : Tuan Majistret, I would like to again seek from this honourable court to
impose an equivalent punishment based on the crime committed by the
accused. The order under Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code is not
relevant to the present case as the number of stolen motorbike cases is
increasing.
With regards to the defense counsel submission on the fact that the
accused had to take care of his mother, I would like to refer the court to
the case of The Ah Cheng, whereby the plea of mitigation to lighten the
sentence or punishment for the reason or excuse that he has to support
his old mother and his sick step brother wa rejected by the court. The
court is of view that the accused person should consider the
consequence of his action before committing the crime and not after

5. 5
such a crime had been committed.
Therefore, I plead to the court for an equivalent imprisonment imposed on the
accused accordingly.
Majistret : Baiklah, setelah meneliti fakta dan barang kes yang dikemukakan, mahkamah
mendapati kamu bersalah atas pertuduhan dan disabitkan atas kesalahan di
bawah Seksyen 379A Kanun Keseksaan.
Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan timbalan pendakwaraya bahawa
walaupun ini merupakan kesalahan pertama tertuduh, faktor bahawa kes
kecurian motorsikal yang terlalu kerap akan diambilkira oleh mahkamah.
Mahkamah juga bersetuju bahawa tertuduh sepatutnya memikirkan kesan
dan akibat perbuatannya sebelum melakukan jenayah dan bukannya
selepas. Walaubagaimanapun, mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa
hukuman penjara bukanlah jalan penyelesaiannya.Fakta bahawa tertuduh
cuba untuk meletakkan semula motorsikal ke tempat asalnya
menunjukkan tertuduh telah insaf akan perbuatannnya jenayah yang
dilakukan adalah berpunca dari desakan hidup.
Setelah mendengar hujahan pihak pendakwa, dan permohonan mitigasi
peguambela, dengan ini, mahkamah memerintahkan tertuduh SAMAD
TUAH BIN JEBAT diikat jamin berkelakuan baik selama 2 tahun dengan
jaminan RM 8,000 dengan seorang penjamin.
Jurubahasa, ada kes lain?
Jurubahasa : Tiada, Tuan.
Majistret : Mahkamah ditangguhkan.