Chew Ah Kiat v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 28 August 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 242
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 242
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Boon Gin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jeyaraj Indra Raj and Harold Seet (Harold Seet & Indra Raj)
• Date: 28 August 2001
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 372 of 2000
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 304A Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether sentence appropriate,Appeal against conviction and sentence,Whether possible to infer collision from circumstantial evidence,Causing death by negligent act,Offences,Appeals,Power of appellate court to reverse trial judge's findings of fact,Criminal Law,Relevant considerations,Collision between appellant's bus and deceased,Prosecution's case solely on circumstantial evidence,Courts and Jurisdiction

: This was an appeal against the decision of District Judge Suriakumari Sidambaran, who convicted the appellant, Chew Ah Kiat (`Chew`) of a charge under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`) and sentenced him to pay a fine of $6,000 and to be disqualified from driving and riding all classes of vehicles for a period of five years. Chew appealed against both his conviction and sentence. I dismissed both appeals and I now give my reasons.

The charge

The appellant was charged in DAC 22659/2000 as follows:

You,

Chew Ah Kiat, Male/41 years,

NRIC No: S2687801B

are charged that you, on the 5th day of January 2000, at about 6.41 a.m., at the signalised controlled T-junction of Bedok North Avenue 3 by Bedok North Street 1, Singapore, being the driver of motor bus SBS 9455M, did cause the death of one Ahmad Bin Mohamet Rawi, Male/89 years, NRIC No: S0456440F, by doing a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout when making a right turn from Bedok North Avenue 3 into Bedok North Street 1, and thus causing motor bus SBS 9455M to collide into the deceased who was riding a bicycle at the pedestrian crossing of Bedok North Street 1, and consequently causing his death and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304A of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

The facts

The following facts were undisputed. On the morning of 5 January 2000, Chew was driving motor bus SBS 9455M (`the bus`). At about 6.40am, he made a right turn from Bedok North Avenue 3 onto Bedok North Street 1 at a signalised controlled T-junction. At that time, the deceased, Ahmad bin Mohamet Rawi (`Ahmad`) was riding his bicycle along the pedestrian crossing at Bedok North Street 1 and he fell from his bicycle. As a result, Ahmad suffered injuries to his head and died at 12.10pm on the same day. The forensic pathologist certified that the cause of Ahmad`s death was a fractured skull.

The bus and the bicycle that Ahmad was riding were inspected at the scene by initial investigator Staff Sergeant Govindharajoo Ramlingam (`Rajoo`). He noted the following damage: (1) a fresh scratch mark on the front right corner of the bumper of the bus; (2) a scratch on the left portion of the black box on the deceased`s bicycle; and (3) the glass windscreen on the front right lower corner of the bus was cracked.

At the time of the incident, the weather was fine, the road surface was dry, traffic volume was light and visibility was clear.

The prosecution`s case

At the trial, the prosecution conceded that there was no direct evidence because there were no eyewitnesses to the accident. It therefore sought to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.

The prosecution`s first witness was Dr Wee Keng Poh (`Dr Wee`), a forensic pathologist. Dr Wee opined that the injuries on Ahmad`s head were sustained when he fell on the surface of the road after the impact of his bicycle with the bus. Dr Wee also gave evidence that although Ahmad had had previous heart attacks, there was no evidence of a fresh heart attack on the day of the accident, according to the autopsy report.

The second witness for the prosecution was the investigating officer, Rajoo. He testified that he arrived at the scene at about 8.20am. At the time he examined the scratch mark on the bumper of the bus, he noted that it was a fresh scratch mark. He could tell that it was fresh because there was no dirt or other substance on it whereas, if it was an old one, it would have been stained. Rajoo gave his opinion that the fresh scratch mark on the bumper of the bus was probably caused by the metal chain guard of the bicycle since that was the lowest point of the bicycle which came closest to the bus. Rajoo also testified that there were brake marks on the road, which suggested that there was heavy and sudden braking by the bus. He also gave evidence that the final position of the bus was that it had already gone past the pedestrian crossing.

Rajoo also testified that he had recorded a statement, P29, from Chew in the course of his investigations. This was unchallenged by Chew.

The prosecution`s third witness, Gan Swee Seng, was a bus starter with the Singapore Bus Service (`SBS`). He testified that bus drivers from the SBS would report any damage to their buses to him. He confirmed that the cracked glass on the windscreen of the bus was sustained before the date of the accident. However, he was not aware of any scratch marks on the front bumper of the bus. He testified that scratch marks were a minor matter and that bus drivers would not need to report scratch marks to him.

The final witness for the prosecution was Senior Investigation Officer Allan Low. He was the current investigating officer of this case, having taken over from Rajoo two days after the accident. He testified that he recorded a statement, P30, from Chew. This statement was not challenged by Chew either.

At the end of the prosecution`s case, the prosecution submitted that it had made out a prima facie case against Chew. It submitted that the fact of collision could be inferred by the following: (1) the fresh scratch mark on the bus; (2) the final position of the bus, which had gone past the pedestrian crossing; and (3) Chew`s own statements in P29 and P30. In these statements, he said that he was travelling at about 20 to 30 kilometres per hour. In P29, he said he only saw Ahmad when he was four feet away; in P30, he said he only saw Ahmad when he was seven feet away; in any case, this led to the inference that Chew could not brake in time to avoid a collision, albeit a light one because of the slow speed. The judge was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against Chew. She accordingly called upon Chew to enter his defence. Chew elected to give evidence.

The defence case

Chew was the only witness for the defence. He gave testimony to the effect that there was no collision between the bus and Ahmad`s bicycle. He said he stopped the bus before Ahmad fell off his bicycle. He claimed that Ahmad fell off his bicycle because he saw the `massive size` of the bus. Chew also claimed that there was an eyewitness to the accident, a taxi driver who had been on the opposite side of the road at the time of the accident. However, Chew did not call this witness to testify on his behalf.

The decision below

The judge accepted Dr Wee`s testimony that Ahmad had died of a fractured skull and that his injuries were consistent with those resulting from a road accident. The judge also accepted Rajoo`s testimony that the scratch mark on the bumper of the bus was fresh, that there were brake marks on the road caused by heavy and sudden braking and that the bus had already gone past the pedestrian crossing before it came to a stop. The sketch plan produced by Rajoo and the photographs depicting the final position of the bus clearly showed that Chew did not stop the bus before it reached the pedestrian crossing.

Although Chew tried to give contradictory explanations to certain parts of his statements, the judge accepted the contents of the statement P30 to be the accurate version after considering the straightforward manner in which the questions had...