Court explains Sasikumar no ordinary thief

This is a case of armed gang robbery where force was used and threats issued.

PUTRAJAYA: The Judiciary, in a statement, has begged to differ with the contents of two FMT reports, “Hindraf slams 10-year jail time for petty crime as excessive”, and “When justice fails the people”, dated May 28 and May 29 respectively. “Such reports affect the integrity of the Judiciary.”

“However, the Judiciary welcomes feedback from members of the public on cases in Court.”

In lamenting that the two reports had gone viral in the social media, the Corporate Communication and International Relations Division of the Chief Registrar’s Office of the Federal Court, pointed out that the facts of the case would show that the late Sasikumar Selvam was no petty thief jailed for ten years. “This is a case of armed gang robbery where force was used and threats issued. Youth is not a mitigating factor.”

The Court as the guardian of the interest and safety of the general public, said the statement, had a duty to perform in sending a message to the accused and potential offenders out there.

“This is not just a case of stealing rice and several tins of sardine,” stressed the statement emailed by Mohd Aizuddin bin Zolkeply who heads the Division.

The facts of the case will show, he said, that Sasikumar together with Narendra Kumar Vengittasan, and two others still at large, committed armed gang robbery with a parang at a Mini Market in Johore Bahru on 2 June 2013. “Sasikumar and his fellow accomplices robbed the Mini Market of five bags of rice, four tins of sardine, cigarettes under various brands, an IPad, and RM200 cash,” said Aizuddin.

“The accused did use force and held the parang to the neck of the Mini Market owner during the robbery.”

He added that the offence was classified under section 395/397 of the Penal Code which carries, upon conviction, jail of up to 20 years and whipping. “In imposing jail of ten years, the Court took into consideration the guilty plea being a mitigating factor, but this had to be balanced with aggravating factors like armed robberies being rampant,” he said. “There was no whipping.”

The Court, he said, used its prerogative and discretionary powers in imposing sentence.

The accused, he continued, did appeal to the High Court of Malaya in Johore Bahru and subsequently the Court of Appeal (CoA). “Both Courts found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Sessions Court in convicting the accused. The CoA added that there was no reason to reduce the jail sentence.