Cheng Swee Hin v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 03 July 1980
• Neutral Citation: [1980] SGCA 6
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 6 of 1978
• Date: 03 July 1980
• Year: 1980
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: MH Rubin (Amarjit, Rubin and Partners)
• Citation: [1980] SGCA 6
• Defendant Counsel: Sowaran Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Whether on balance on probabilities 'abnormality was such as substantially impaired',Special exceptions,Diminished responsibility,s 300 exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 103)

The appellant, Cheng Swee Hin alias Koh Kee Fat, was charged, tried and convicted by the High Court of murder by causing the death of one Chan Mui Kiah. We dismissed his appeal against conviction and now proceed to give our reasons.

In April 1973 the appellant, the deceased and one Loi Hee San were partners in a firm called Swiss Engineering Co of No 136, Dunlop Street. In March 1976 the partnership firm was converted into a private Limited company called Swiss Engineering Co Pte Ltd the registered office being at No 124, Dunlop Street. In August 1976 Loi Hee San withdrew his capital from the company and thereafter ceased to have any interest in it. The appellant and the deceased were directors each drawing a salary of $600 a month and share 1% of the monthly turnover of the company. Each also was given a company car for his sole use.

In March 1977 their relationship was strained over a disagreement relating to the appellant`s desire to change his company car and by June 1977 their relationship had deteriorated rapidly. In early June the appellant was told by the deceased that he was no longer to be actively engaged in the business of the company and that as from 1 July 1977 he would receive only $150 a month salary. The deceased`s decision led to altercations between them.

On 23 June 1977 the appellant joined a group tour of Haadyai, Thailand. There he bought a revolver and returned to Singapore by air on 26 June. The others returned to Singapore by train. On the morning of 27 June the appellant hired a datsun car No SQ 2184A for two days. That evening he was seen standing outside No 124, Dunlop Street at about 6.20pm carrying a bundle wrapped in a newspaper by one Ng Tai Lai. He asked Ng Tai Lai for the deceased and on Ng Tai Lai replying that he did not know where the deceased was the appellant knocked on the door of No 124, Dunlop Street. As there was no response he left.

At about 8pm two gun-shot sounds coming from the rear of No 124, Dunlop Street were heard. The deceased was seen coming out of the front door, running alongside the shops groaning in pain and entering a flower shop, No 132, Dunlop Street. The appellant was seen coming out of No 124, Dunlop Street, entering a car parked in front of the shop and speeding off from the scene.

Inside the flower shop the deceased was bleeding profusely and, when asked what had happened, he replied ` Johnny.` The appellant was also known as Johnny. The deceased was eventually taken by ambulance to the Singapore General Hospital where he was found to be in critical condition with severe gunshot wounds in his body. He was pronounced dead at 8.50pm.

At about 8.45pm that same evening the appellant went to Toa Payoh police station carrying a newspaper wrapped bundle. He told the police officers that he had committed a severe offence. The police opened the bundle and found it to contain a Smith and Wesson revolver with five rounds of ammunition in it. The appellant said he had purchased the revolver in Thailand, that he was involved in a shooting case at Dunlop Street and that he wished to surrender. He was then arrested.

About five hours later, at 1.45am on 28 June 1977 Inspector Yeo recorded a statement from the appellant. The statement reads as follows:

In June 1977 the deceased and the sleeping partner cut down my salary and took back the company`s car. They also asked me to withdraw from the partnership. They proposed to pay me a sum of $50,000 in return for my share in the company. As I was not on good terms with them I agreed to withdraw from the partnership provided the company paid the $50,000 in one payment but they said that they could only pay me in instalments. They said that if I disagreed to their proposal, they would make me a sleeping partner and pay me $150 a month ... I had been approaching the deceased again and again regarding the settlement of my partnership in the company. I also requested him to hold a meeting to settle this matter but he refused. I was annoyed, when the deceased told me that they will hold a meeting on 30 June 1977. On 24 June 1977 I left Singapore for Thailand, as I wanted to go there to buy a gun. I wanted to take revenge on the deceased. I paid 4,000 in Thai currency. On 26 June 1977 I took a taxi from Thailand to Penang. I returned to Singapore by air on the same day. I did not inform the company about my trip to Thailand. On 27 June 1977 I went to office as usual. I left the office at about 10am I went for a show. Some time after 4pm I went home. At about 7pm I left my home, with my gun, which I wrapped with a piece of newspaper. I arrived at the office at about 7.50pm. I met the deceased in the office and we had an argument over the changing of locks on the main door. I intended to kill the deceased and after a short argument, and on seeing him alone in the office, I fired one shot at him. The deceased then ran and I fired the second shot at him. I left the scene in a borrowed car as I intended to surrender myself at the Toa Payoh Police Station. My car was punctured on the way to the police station. I took a taxi and made my way to the Toa Payoh police station where I surrendered myself.

A post-mortem was performed at 9am on 28 June 1977 by Dr Chao, the senior forensic pathologist, who certified that the cause of death was haemorrhage from a gun-shot wound in the lung....