Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 05 October 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 85
• Citation: [1989] SGHC 85
• Date: 05 October 1989
• Year: 1989
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohideen Rubin (Amarjit Rubin & Partners)
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 185 of 1987
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence of four months` imprisonment on the following charge:

You, ... are charged that you, on or about 18 May 1984, being a sergeant investigating drug abuse attached to the Tanglin Police Station, knowing that an offence under s 6(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (No 5 of 1973) had been committed on 17 May 1984 at Blk 3 Margaret Close, #07-14 by one Razali bin Bakar, which is an offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding ten years, caused evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear by deliberately not enclosing the statement recorded under s 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code from the said Razali bin Bakar on 18 May 1984 which implicated himself in that offence in the investigation papers, Ref D/1 191/84, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 201 of the Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Ed).

Section 201 provides as follows:

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to a fine, and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

The facts were shortly as follows. On 17 May 1984, the police raided a house at Blk 3 Margaret Close, #07-14 and arrested one Razali bin Bakar (PW2) for consumption of drugs. A stick of vegetable matter (which was subsequently analyzed to be ganja) was found in the kitchen cabinet drawer. Razali confessed to Sgt Toh that the stick of ganja belonged to him. Thereafter, on information given by Razali, the police raided another house and also arrested three other persons for the same type of offence. Sgt Toh brought the arrested persons back to the Tanglin Police Station where he handed them to the appellant who was then a sergeant in charge of drug abuse and all drug cases in that division. Sgt Toh lodged an arrest report at about 7.40pm; he also informed the appellant that Razali had confessed to the possession of cannabis.

A urine sample was taken from Razali after which he and his friend were placed in the lock-up until 1am when the appellant took a statement from him. This statement (P3) reads as follows:

I, the above-named, is single and residing with my mother at the above-stated place. I am a workers brigade attached at Hougang worksite.

On 17 May 1984 at about 3pm, whilst I was at home with my younger brother age about three years old, a party of CNB officers raided my house, they discovered one stick of cannabis from the drawer of my cupboard and arrested me together with two other Chinese friends who had just paid me a visit a few minutes before the CNB officers` arrival.

I wish to state that the stated stick of cannabis belong to me but had forgotten where and when I had bought it. That is all I have to say.

The statement was read over and explained in the Malay language and I confirmed it true and correct.

Recorder

A Salam Salleh

sgd

Razali Bin Bakar

sgd

At 1.10am, the appellant took a second statement (P4) from Razali. This statement reads as follows:

I, the above-named, is single and residing with my mother, together with brothers and sisters at the above-stated address.

On 17 May 1984 at about 3pm, whilst I was at home with my three year old brother, a party of CNB officers raided my house and they discovered a roll of ganja from the cupboard drawer which was shared by three brothers, besides that some of my friends and even my brothers` friends have access to the said cupboard as we have a big family staying in the one- room flat.

I admit I have taken other drugs but never smoked or taken any ganja. The stated ganja does not belong to me and I do not know who put it inside the stated drawer. I admitted to the CNB officers as I was afraid that they might hit me if I did not admit at that time.

That is all I have to say. The statement was read and explained in the Malay language and I confirmed it is true and correct.

Recorder

A Salam Salleh

sgd

Razali bin Bakar

sgd

After taking the statements, the appellant put them in his drawer, which was his practice. Razali was then released on bail. The stick of ganja and Razali`s urine sample were also sent for analysis. Three or four days later, the appellant prepared the Investigation Paper file (the IP). He put P4 into the IP but not P3. On or about 29 May 1984, the appellant informed Razali by letter that the urine sample was found to contain morphine and he was asked if he wished to have a second test of his urine sample. He declined the request on the same day. On the same day also, the appellant received from the Department of Scientific Services a report that the stick of vegetable matter was cannabis. On 13 June 1984, the appellant took a statement from Razali under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). In that statement, Razali confessed to consumption of morphine. On the same day, the appellant prepared a document called `statement of the facts` in which he wrote that a charge for possession of the drug was not tendered as there was insufficient evidence as the exhibit was discovered in a cupboard shared by three brothers and their close friends and, further, Razali had admitted to consumption of morphine and not cannabis. Razali was charged in court on 15 June 1984 for the offence of consumption of morphine.

On the following day, 16 May 1984, the appellant submitted the IP to his superior officer (PW3) who, on the basis of its contents, agreed with the appellant`s recommendation not to proceed with the charge for possession of cannabis. For reasons not disclosed at the trial, the appellant was investigated in connection with the way he handled the investigation of Razali`s case and P3 was recovered from his desk drawer on 27 June 1984. The appellant was then charged with an offence under s 201 of the Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Ed) and was convicted.

At the trial, Razali gave evidence for the prosecution. He said that P3 was the true statement and that he signed P4 although it was not the statement given by him. He said he was asked to sign P4 and he signed. He also said that he did not know the appellant and that he did not know of any reason why the appellant asked him to sign P4. He admitted that his mother, who was at the police station that night, questioned him about the stick of ganja, but that he denied having told her that he admitted to possession because he was afraid of the police officer who raided the house and that he wanted to protect his brothers. He also said that he was a drug addict. The appellant`s testimony was that after he had taken P3, he overheard Razali telling his mother he had admitted to possession of the stick of ganja because he was afraid and the mother scolded Razali for having done so. The appellant then called Razali and asked him why he had made the admission and Razali replied that he was afraid of being assaulted. The appellant then decided to take the second statement. The appellant also testified that he believed P4 because Razali gave it calmly, whereas he was not calm when he gave P3. He also believed P4 because Razali had told him that he did not smoke ganja as it was not his `standard`. He also said that a doubt was created in his mind because the arrest report stated that the ganja was not found in the physical possession of Razali. He said he had no intention to screen Razali but to find out the truth. He explained that he did not put both P3 and P4 into the IP because he did not want to confuse his superior officer who was new to the job. He kept P3 in the drawer in case it was needed. Later, under cross-examination, he said he did not put P3 in the IP because he had forgotten about it, and then, after questioning admitted that he had never intended to put P3 into the IP because he believed P4. He said that if he had any intention to screen Razali, he would not have kept P3. He also said that he had not seen Razali`s mother since 17 May 1984.

Razali`s mother testified on...