JUSTICE, people are saying, has finally been served in the case against “Datin” Rozita Mohamad Ali.
On Thursday, the Shah Alam High Court sentenced Rozita to eight years in prison for abusing her Indonesian maid two years ago. This, after a review of the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court sentence against her, which bound her over for five years on a good behaviour bond of RM20,000 earlier last month.
Rozita had first been charged with attempted murder, but the charge was amended to causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons and means, to which she pleaded guilty. But, when the Sessions Court judge handed down the good behaviour bond, the nation erupted in furore.
Rozita had abused her 19-year-old maid, Suyanti Sutrinso, using a kitchen knife, the steel rod of a mop, a clothes hanger and an umbrella in 2016. She caused multiple injuries to the victim’s head, hands, legs and internal organs between 7am and 12pm on Dec 21, 2016, at a house in Mutiara Damansara.
So severe were the injuries that the case brought up memories of another maid abuse case years ago, one which also hit a raw nerve among right-minded Malaysians (and Indonesians, of course).
This was the case of Nirmala Bonat, whose employer was convicted of abusing her using hot water and a hot iron between September 2003 and May 2004.
Pictures of the scars and injuries suffered by Nirmala shocked the nation.
It was a case that was followed closely by many Malaysians and Indonesians.
Though more than 10 years ago, the memory of the Nirmala case was still fresh in the minds of many Malaysians. So, when Rozita got off on a good behaviour bond, the outcry was fierce, to say the least.
To be fair, it was clear from the start that the prosecution team would seek a review of the sentence. But, even if they did not consider appealing the sentence, the public reaction would surely have changed their minds. Such is the power of the people.
All things considered, Rozita can probably consider herself lucky. Section 326 of the Penal Code, under which she was charged, provides for a 20-year prison sentence, plus fine and whipping. That she received just eight years from the Shah Alam High Court is, for all intents and purposes, a relatively light sentence.
In the case of Nirmala, her employer received a 12-year sentence. Perhaps the learned judge took into account Nirmala’s more grievous injuries and decided that Rozita should get a lighter sentence.
But this episode brings one question to the fore. How did Rozita first receive such a light sentence as a good behaviour bond?
When you take into account the sentence handed down to Yim Pek Ha, Nirmala’s employer, who caused injuries which were only slightly more than the ones suffered by Suyanti, you can’t help but wonder how such a sentence could have been handed down. You can’t but imagine that this was a travesty of justice.
What was the Sessions Court judge thinking?
There were those who questioned why the charge was amended from attempted murder to causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Perhaps this was what caused the judge to mete out such a sentence, they said.
But the fact remains that both sections of the Penal Code provide for a maximum jail sentence of 20 years. In most cases, attempted murder is more difficult to prove than the lesser charge of voluntarily causing hurt. So, the change in charges was likely a strategic move on the part of the prosecution.
(In attempted murder cases, the prosecution must prove that there was intent to cause the death of the victim, or that the perpetrator had knowledge that if his or her actions caused death, he or she would be guilty of murder.)
Again, it must be stated that both Section 307 of the Penal Code (attempted murder) and Section 326 (the lesser charge) carry the same punishment in terms of imprisonment. That this is true points to the severity of the two crimes, that those who drew up the law believed them to be of equal weight.
So, again, what was the Sessions Court judge thinking? What caused him to mete out such a light sentence? These are questions best left answered by the powers that be.
Perhaps the powers that be will find out soon. Perhaps we may never know. Let’s hope it’s the former instead of the latter.
The writer has more than two decades of experience, much of which has been spent writing about crime and the military. A die-hard Red Devil, he can usually be found wearing a Manchester United jersey when outside of work