Asokan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 02 May 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGCA 43
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 3 of 1995
• Date: 02 May 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: G Raman (G Raman & Pnrs) and Rey Foo (KS Chia, Gurdeep and Param)
• Citation: [1995] SGCA 43
• Defendant Counsel: Jennifer Marie (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Offences,Reliance on forensic evidence,ss 34 & 300 Penal Code (Cap 224),'Common intention',Murder,Whether appellant could rely on any defences to charge,Criminal Law,Fatal injury caused in furtherance of common intention,Words and Phrases,Common intention to cause grievous bodily injury and rob victim,Whether appellant or accomplice inflicted injury,s 34 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether appellant only guilty of rash acts

The appellant was convicted in the High Court of the charge that, between 2.30pm on 29 November 1992 and 7.30am on 30 November 1992, he, together with one Maniam s/o Rathinswamy (Maniam) and in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of one Tan Heng Hong (Ah Hong). Maniam was arrested soon after the incident and stood trial in the High Court and was convicted of the offence of murder of Ah Hong. Maniam`s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 16 March 1994: see 506. In the present case, the appellant appealed against his conviction. We also dismissed his appeal and now give our reasons.

The prosecution case

On 30 November 1992, at about 7am, the police were notified that a car, a white Nissan Coupe, had been set on fire at Lorong Lada Hitam, off Mandai Road. The police later found that the car was badly burnt and discovered some charred skeletal remains in the boot of the car, which were subsequently identified to be those of a human body. The forensic expert Professor Chao Tzee Cheng (Professor Chao) went to the scene and inspected the remains, and after the inspection they were taken to the Singapore General Hospital Mortuary. The remains were later identified to be those of Ah Hong. The badly burnt car was registered in Ah Hong`s brother`s name. The investigating officer, Inspector Lim Cher Khin, also recovered an axe-head and a bunch of five keys. Professor Chao performed a post mortem on the skeletal remains and prepared an autopsy report. His evidence was that Ah Hong died before he was burnt. This was not challenged by the defence. Professor Chao also gave evidence relating to the pattern of blood spatters on the wall found at the scene of the killing. Examining the photographs taken of the scene of the killing, Professor Chao observed that the blood spatters were large and `teardrop` in shape and were directed upwards at an angle, emanating from a point or source which was about one metre from the floor. He opined that the spread of the blood spatters and the alignments indicated that the blood had shot out forcefully from a cut artery, which would most likely have been the carotid artery, given the height and the source of the spray. He explained that Ah Hong would probably have been bending over when his carotid artery was cut. The artery could have been cut by a knife thrust or by the slicing action of a knife. Alternatively, it could have been cut by a chop from a sharp axe. A person whose carotid artery had been severed would probably die in about five minutes. Such an injury would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The prosecution`s case relied mainly on the three statements given by the appellant to the police: one statement recorded under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (the s 122(6) statement) and two statements under s 121 of the Code (the s 121 statements). The voluntariness of these statements was not challenged, and accordingly they were admitted in evidence. In summary, in so far as material, they stated as follows. The appellant had known Ah Hong since his childhood. Sometime in November 1992, the appellant was approached by one Don Koh Beng Guan, who claimed to be able to supply Dupont lighters and pens at a discounted price. The appellant would be given a commission for introducing prospective purchasers of these items to Don Koh. After introducing Ah Hong to Don Koh, the appellant suspected that Ah Hong connived to deprive him of the commission due to him. He contacted Maniam, whom he first met in 1990, asking Maniam to help him persuade Ah Hong to pay him the commission. They lured Ah Hong to meet them at the dining room in the administration block of Tan Tock Seng Hospital on the pretext that Maniam had some gold to sell to Ah Hong. However, before meeting Ah Hong, the appellant and Maniam agreed to arm themselves with weapons as a precaution. In accordance with their plan, the appellant procured an axe as well as a knife. In case Ah Hong should turn aggressive, Maniam would give the appellant a signal to hit Ah Hong from behind with an axe. They met Ah Hong as arranged on 29 November 1992. As to what happened subsequently it is best to quote verbatim what he said in his statements. In the s 122(6) statement, he gave the following account:

1 ... I took him to see Mani [Maniam] at Tan Tock Seng Hospital.

2 There, both Ah Hong and Mani discussed about the gold, Mani then told Ah Hong not to talk about the gold but about the commission that was supposed to be given to me. While they were talking, they had an argument. It became a very heated argument. ... The argument erupted into a fight.

3 At this juncture, Mani looked at me. I then took the axe and hit Ah Hong at the back of his head lightly. I knew that if I hit him hard, he would die. That is why I hit him lightly. Upon hitting him, Ah Hong turned back and charged at me. I again hit him with the axe on the left side of his head. He then dropped to the floor. I did this unwittingly. I did not know what to do. Then I saw Mani stabbing Ah Hong`s body around the stomach region a number of times. I was confused. Ah Hong stopped breathing. I realized then that he had died. ...

Substantially the same account of the incident was given in his s 121 statement. He said:

22 The two of them [Maniam and Ah Hong] were discussing about the gold deal in English. A while later, the discussion turned to a verbal fight. At one point, Mani looked up at me. I then took the axe with my right hand from the kitchen cabinet and struck Ah Hong`s head once lightly. I hit him with the sharp part of the axe. Immediately, Ah Hong turned his head behind and looked at me. From his look, I knew that he was angry. He stood up and charged at me. At this point, I again struck Ah Hong on the left side of the face with the sharp edge of the axe. The second time I struck him, I saw blood coming out. Ah Hong then collapsed onto the floor. When he wanted to get up, Mani came with a knife and stood on the right side of Ah Hong`s body. Mani then stabbed Ah Hong`s lower body many times with the knife. At this time, Ah Hong tried to get up again and Mani stepped his back body with his leg to prevent him from getting up. At this time, Ah Hong was groaning in pain. When I saw Mani stepping Ah Hong`s body, I became panic and dropped my axe from my hand. About ten minutes, Ah Hong stopped groaning and he was motionless.

The appellant also gave an account of what transpired after Ah Hong had died. He said that he and Maniam relieved Ah Hong of his cash and valuables, and then decided to dispose of the dead body by driving Ah Hong`s car to a secluded area and setting fire to the car with the body in it. As the appellant could not drive, he enlisted the aid of two acquaintances, Chew Guan Mong and one Philip. Together with the appellant, Philip drove the car to Lorong Lada Hitam, off Mandai Road, where the car, containing Ah Hong`s body in the boot, was burnt. The appellant subsequently fled to Malaysia. He was arrested in Muar on 13 August 1994 and brought back to Singapore.

The defence

The appellant gave evidence in his defence. The learned trial judge gave a detailed account of the appellant`s evidence in his judgment, and as there was no dispute as to the accuracy or correctness of such account, we respectfully adopt the narration of such evidence as given by the learned trial judge. The appellant`s evidence was this. He knew Ah Hong since his childhood. They were staying in the same area. He knew Maniam in 1990, and in 1991 they became close friends. He was the middleman in the transaction involving Dupont pens and lighters between one Don Koh Beng Guan and Ah Hong and both of them assured him that he would receive a commission. In connection with the transaction, he went with them and one Tan Choon Hock to a factory at Paya Lebar, which was then followed by a discussion in a coffee shop near the Whampoa Interchange. At the end of this discussion, Ah Hong told the appellant that if the Dupont business materialized, he would receive a commission. Thereafter, he was unable to contact all the three of them, and he felt that he was cheated of his commission.

The appellant further said that he subsequently told Maniam that Ah Hong had cheated him of his commission, and Maniam asked him to bring Ah Hong to see him so that he (Maniam) would talk to Ah Hong on the appellant`s behalf concerning the commission. The appellant told Maniam that he would inform Ah Hong that Maniam had some gold to sell as an excuse to arrange for Ah Hong to meet Maniam. He subsequently got in touch with Ah Hong and in consequence a date and place were arranged for the meeting,...