Anbuarsu v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGCA 22
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 31 of 1994
• Date: 27 February 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1995
• Plaintiff Counsel: Selva K Naidu and Balasubramaniam (Palakrishnan & Partners)
• Citation: [1995] SGCA 22
• Defendant Counsel: Christine Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Proof of evidence,Whether confessions inconsistent with prosecution case,Voluntariness,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Murder,Whether statement made without inducement, threat or promise,Evidence,Whether undue weight given to confessions,s 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Confessions,Whether the appellant was assailant,ss 34 & 302 Penal Code (Cap 224),Offences,Murder committed in furtherance of common intention,Statements,Criminal Law

The appellant was convicted in the High Court of the charge that he on 25 October 1993 at about 2.45am at Hayo 24-hour Coffee-shop, 55 Chander Road, Singapore, together with two other unknown persons, in furtherance of the common intention of them all committed murder by causing the death of one Thampusamy Murugian Gunasekaran (the deceased), an offence punishable under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code. Against his conviction, the appellant appealed. We dismissed the appeal and now give our reasons.

The prosecution case

The prosecution case was as follows. On 25 October 1993 at about 2.30am the deceased and one Murugear were having supper at the Hayo Coffee-shop at 55 Chander Road. Suddenly a male Indian armed with an axe and a male Chinese armed with an iron pipe rushed into the coffee-shop and attacked the deceased and Murugear from behind. The deceased who had slumped in his chair after the first blow, was slashed on the back of his head about three times. Murugear was also hit again and when he tried to escape, he was pursued by the assailants.

At the time of the attack on the deceased and Murugear, a third person, a male Indian, armed either with a wooden pole or an iron pipe, stood at the entrance of the coffee-shop but did not participate in the attack. Thereafter, the three assailants ran away from the coffee-shop. As the male Indian who was armed with an axe was running out of the coffee-shop, he shouted at the people in the shop in Malay and in Hokkien.

Subsequently, the deceased was rushed to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Dr Charles Seah Kim Choon (Dr Seah), who examined the deceased in the hospital, found him almost brain dead. The deceased was bleeding actively from his scalp wounds on the back of his head. Dr Seah performed an emergency operation. During the operation Dr Seah found the deceased`s lateral sinus over his occipital region cut and his brain in the same region lacerated. Efforts made to arrest the active bleeding from the lateral sinus were not successful and the deceased died at about 7.20am.

In his autopsy report, Professor Chao Tzee Cheng (Prof Chao) certified the cause of death as a fractured skull. In his evidence, he said that there were four external wounds on the deceased`s head and there were three fractures beneath the three wounds. He explained that the upper end of the fracture under one of the wounds was triangular in shape measuring 3 x 0.8 cm which was characteristic of a fracture that would have been caused by an axe swung at the head with the tip of the axe probably coming into contact on this part of the skull when the deceased was attacked. The other two slash wounds, he said, were consistent with injuries having been caused with a sharp weapon like a parang or an axe. Prof Chao said that considerable force was required to cause such severe injuries and that two of the wounds individually, or three of them collectively, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

On 2 March 1994, the appellant surrendered himself to the police for the killing of the deceased. According to Detective Station Inspector Somasamy (Somasamy), the appellant telephoned him at about 10.10am that morning and told him that he wanted to surrender himself with some weapons. At 11.30am that day, the appellant saw Somasamy in his office at the Clementi Police Station.

Somasamy testified that the appellant told him that he was the headman of the Gi Leng Kiat secret society and the appellant handed some weapons to him. The appellant then told Somasamy that he was involved in a case of murder at a coffee-shop at Desker Road. When Somasamy asked him when this took place, the appellant told him that this happened during the Deepavali festive season in 1993. The appellant further told him that he rushed into the coffee-shop where he saw two male Indians seated and having drinks. He stated that he slashed one of them with a parang and the parang that he used was amongst the weapons he had surrendered. Somasamy said that he then telephoned three different police stations to verify the confession of the appellant, after which the appellant was placed under arrest.

The evidence of Somasamy was challenged on the grounds that the appellant did not confess to a murder when he surrendered and in view of the absence of records, it was unlikely that the appellant had made the confession to him. It was put to Somasamy that when the appellant came to see him on 2 March 1994, it was the appellant`s intention to surrender himself to the police to be charged in court and be sent to jail for being in possession of weapons. It was further put to him that the appellant wanted to be jailed because he had personal problems.

These suggestions were denied by Somasamy who explained that the appellant confessed to him whereupon he had to check on the confession of the appellant with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). He first called Tanglin Police Station and then the Central Police Station before calling the CID. In fact, he arrested the appellant only after he had spent over an hour checking on the confession of the appellant. Further, there were two written notations of the confessions being an entry in Somasamy`s pocket book that the appellant surrendered himself to the police for a murder and the arrest report which showed beyond any doubt that the appellant was arrested for the murder at No 55 Chander Road.

On 3 March 1994, Insp T Maniam (Insp Maniam), the investigating officer, recorded a s 122(6) statement from the appellant. The recording of the said statement commenced at 10.35am and ended at 11.50am. After a voir dire, this statement was admitted by the trial judge into evidence as a statement of the appellant made without any inducement, threat or promise. In the statement the appellant admitted that at about 1.30am he went in a motor van to the coffee-shop at No 55 Chander Road with his gang to look for rival gang members. At the coffee-shop, he saw the deceased and another person drinking beer. He left the coffee-shop and returned to the motor van to arm himself with a weapon. He returned to the coffee-shop with the weapon and swung the weapon from behind the deceased. The members of his gang joined in the attack and afterwards, they ran out of the coffee-shop. He ran in the direction of Serangoon Road and left the scene in the motor van.

At the request of the defence, the long statement of the appellant was admitted into evidence. The long statement consisting of 12 paragraphs was recorded by Insp Maniam on 15 March 1994 from 10.05am to 1pm and from 2.35pm to 2.45pm. In it, the appellant expanded on the account he had given in the s 122(6) statement.

On 23 March 1994, the appellant accompanied by Insp Maniam and two other officers went to the coffee-shop at No 55 Chander Road. In the police car, the appellant directed the driver how to get to the coffee-shop. When they arrived, the appellant showed Insp Maniam the table at the...