Abdul Rahim Bin Wahap v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Abdul Rahim Bin Wahap

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court of murder under s.302 of the Penal Code for killing his romantic partner, who had discovered he was married and demanded repayment of monies she had invested in his business.
• Prosecution evidence, including autopsy findings, forensic DNA analysis linking bloodstains in the appellant's vehicle to the deceased, and a discovery of the deceased's belongings following the appellant's information under s.27 of the Evidence Act 1950, established that the appellant assaulted the deceased into unconsciousness before throwing her off a bridge to her death.
• On appeal, the appellant withdrew his challenge to the conviction and confined his appeal solely to the sentence, seeking substitution of the death penalty with imprisonment under the newly enacted Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.

• Whether, following the withdrawal of the appeal against conviction, the death sentence should be set aside pursuant to the discretionary sentencing framework introduced by the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.
• How the aggravating features of the offence (the brutality of the assault, the manner of disposing of the victim, and the absence of any attempt to seek help for the victim) should be weighed against mitigating factors (youthful age, clean record, and remorse shown by withdrawing the conviction appeal).
• What term of imprisonment and whipping, within the statutory range of 30 to 40 years and a minimum of 12 strokes, would be fit and proportionate having regard to retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation.

• The Court unanimously set aside the death sentence and substituted it with 30 years' imprisonment (the statutory minimum) calculated from the date of arrest, together with 12 strokes of whipping.
• The Court held that the appellant's youth at the time of the offence, his clean record, and his remorse in withdrawing the conviction appeal (thereby conserving judicial resources) were significant mitigating factors warranting the minimum custodial term rather than a higher sentence.
• Despite finding the offence to have been committed with cold-blooded brutality and calculated concealment, the Court held that the statutory minimum sentence adequately balanced retribution and deterrence with a residual prospect of rehabilitation for the appellant.