KUALA LUMPUR: An ex-construction worker, 44, will remain in jail for 30 years and caned 20 times for raping a Customs officer twice after she returned home from breaking fast with her family last year.
Hassan Ahmad, as the appellant, was also ordered to serve three years in jail for trespassing into the 39-year-old victim's home.
Ipoh High Court judicial commissioner Moses Susayan, in his judgment, dismissed Hassan's appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court decision for the sentences, which are to run consecutively.
Hassan, in his appeal, contended that the sentences imposed were excessive and sought a reduction.
The Sessions Court had sentenced him to 20 years jail and 10 strokes of the cane for the first rape charge; 10 years jail and 10 strokes of the cane for the second rape charge and three years jail for house trespass, all to run consecutively.
He committed the first offence between 10pm on April 17 and 1.47am on April 18 last year; the second offence between 5.30am and 6.39am on April 18 last year; and the third offence between 10pm on April 17 and 9am on April 18 in the same year.
The offences occurred at a civil servants housing area in Ipoh, Perak.
The prosecution argued that the Sessions Court judge had acted within the bounds of the law and appropriately considered the seriousness of the offences, public interest and the mitigating factors.
Moses said Hassan had failed to show that the Sessions Court judge had erred in principle or imposed a sentence that is manifestly excessive.
"The sentences are within the statutory limits and reflects a proper exercise of judicial discretion," he said in his judgment uploaded on the judiciary website.
Moses said the Sessions Court judge had correctly applied the sentencing principle where the sentences for the two rape charges were ordered to run consecutively due to the severity and nature of the offences.
"The proximity of time between the two commissions of offence had a sufficient "cooling off period" to realise one's wrong.
"The commission of the second offence of rape was with a fresh intention independent of the first rape.
"While the victim suffered a second time in the hands of the appellant thinking the nightmare was over, why should the appellant be led to believe that the second rape is part of a single transaction for the benefit of the concurrent sentencing.
"The victim had suffered physical and psychological harm as described in the Victim Impact Statement (VIS), which necessitated a stringent approach to sentencing to reflect the gravity of the appellant's actions and the trauma inflicted on the victim," he said.
In the VIS, the victim said she had returned home after breaking fast and found it had been broken into.
She said she was in her master bedroom when she was attacked by an unknown man.
While struggling, the man had pointed a knife at her neck and threatened to kill her if she continued to resist.
She said she managed to stab the man on his left shoulder and her hands were then bound with a handphone charger cable, which was under her bed.
Moses said the victim was innocent and could not have done anything to avoid or escape.
"The court finds that in such circumstances, the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court judge to be appropriate and fitting for the severity of the crime committed by the appellant.
"While the appellant may eventually regain freedom after serving sentence, the psychological trauma inflicted on the victim may have lasting effects, with no guarantee of full recovery."