G Ravichander v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 167
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 41 of 2002
• Date: 31 July 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: SS Dhillon (Dhillon Dendroff & Partners)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 167
• Defendant Counsel: Ivan Chua Boon Chwee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether to give due weight to girlfriend's evidence,Purpose,Corrective training,Sentencing,When longer period of corrective training appropriate,Relevant considerations to be taken into account in determining length of corrective training,Evidence,Whether appellant's innocence proven by girlfriend's favourable testimony,Hostile witness,Girlfriend turning hostile and testifying in appellant's favour,s 12(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Witnesses,Whether to treat girlfriend's evidence with caution,Appellant's girlfriend testifying for the prosecution

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Facts

G Ravichander returned to his flat at Block 55 Lorong 5 Toa Payoh late in the evening of 1 April 2001. According to his girlfriend, one Mahaletchimy d/o Pitchay Jaganathan, who lived with him, she refused to open the door to let him into his own home as she felt afraid that he would pick a fight with her. Evidently irritated at this, Ravichander began to scold her and shout at her.

2 Ravichander broke the window in an attempt to gain entry into his own house. He placed the broken glass shards on the parapet of the fifth storey corridor. These pieces of glass fell five storeys onto a car parked below, damaging its windscreen.

3 Police officers summoned to the scene by Mahaletchimy arrived at approximately 11:35 p.m. that night. At first only one officer attended to the dispute, but as he assessed the subject to be aggressive, he called for back-up. They found Ravichander in the corridor outside his flat scolding and shouting at Mahaletchimy. Ravichander’s left hand was bleeding, apparently sustained whilst breaking the window. According to SSgt Loh Mun Chun, Mahaletchimy was inside the unit crying. She appeared to be frightened. SSgt Loh and SSgt Mohd Hirwan also testified that they had seen Ravichander pointing at Mahaletchimy and shouting "I will murder you" in a loud and aggressive manner. He also said that even if he were to be arrested and convicted, he would still murder Mahaletchimy after his release from prison. When Ravichander ordered his girlfriend to strip so that she would not take any of his things from his flat, she started to lift up her blouse but were stopped by the police officers.

4 The three police officers could not persuade Mahaletchimy to open the grill gate to let them in until they had taken Ravichander away into custody.

The Charges

5 Two charges were levelled against Ravichander. The first, DAC No. 54152/2001, read as follows:

You, G Ravichander, male/35 years, NRIC No. S1761784B are charged that you, on the 1^st day of April 2001, at or about 11.32 p.m., at the corridor outside unit #05-158, Blk 55 Lor 5 Toa Payoh, Singapore, did commit Criminal Intimidation by threatening one Mahaletchimy d/o Pitchay Jaganathan with death, by stating the words "I will murder you", intending thereby to cause alarm to the said Mahaletchimy d/o Pitchay Jaganathan and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

6 The second charge, MAC No. 11143/2001, read as follows:

You, G Ravichander, male/35 years, NRIC No. S1761784B are charged that you on the 1^st day of April 2001, at or about 11.32 p.m., at the 5^th floor corridor of Blk 55 Lor 5 Toa Payoh, Singapore, did cause an act so rashly as to endanger human life and the personal safety of others when you placed broken glass fragments onto the parapet of the said corridor, causing them to fall to the ground thereby causing damage to a motorcar bearing registration number SCG 9408B and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 336 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

7 Ravichander pleaded guilty to MAC 11143/2001, but claimed trial to DAC No. 54152/2001 in the District Court. He was found guilty of the second charge and was sentenced in respect of both offences to a term of seven years’ corrective training. For MAC 11143/2001, he was also ordered to pay $687.20 as compensation, in default of which he would have to serve three days’ imprisonment.

8 Before this Court, Ravichander appealed against the conviction under the s 506 charge of aggravated criminal intimidation, as well as against the sentence of corrective training. I dismissed both appeals but in view of the specific circumstances of this case I decided to enhance the term of corrective training to the maximum of 14 years. I now give my reasons for my decision.

Appeal against Conviction

9 The main plank of the appeal against conviction rested on Mahaletchimy’s denial, made in court, that Ravichander had ever threatened to kill her, as well as Ravichander’s own testimony that he had never said those words that constituted the charge against him. In effect, the submission was that no threat had been uttered and therefore the offence of criminal intimidation as defined in s 503 of the Penal Code could not be made out. Counsel argued that the district judge was wrong in disregarding the totality of the evidence proffered by the couple that totally exonerated Ravichander of the alleged offence. He also submitted that the judge had placed too much weight on the testimonies of the police officers even though they were directly contradicted by the victim and the accused.

10 I had no difficulty whatsoever in dismissing that line of argument. In my opinion, the district judge was correct in according little weight to both Ravichander’s as well as Mahaletchimy’s evidence. On the other hand,

the police officers who testified for the prosecution had absolutely no reason to lie under oath. There was also nothing that could impugn the consistency in the evidence that they presented in Court and no suggestion at all of any collusion between them. In fact, SSgt Loh, SSgt Mohd Hirwan as well as Cpl Hirman were called to the scene as a result of a call by Mahaletchimy to the police. Their testimonies was therefore worthy of the weight ascribed to them by the district judge.

11 Ravichander had said in court that he did not threaten the victim. He had accidentally cracked the glass window while trying to open it to speak to Mahaletchimy who was hiding inside the flat. He had spoken to the police officers but they had "hammered" him. Unfortunately, Ravichander had failed to raise even this simple defence in his cautioned statements to the police when faced with the two charges against him. Instead he chose to say nothing. Furthermore, Ravichander could not shed any light as to why the police officers at the scene that night would want to fabricate evidence against him.

12 As for Mahaletchimy, the district judge had rightly noted that her sister was Ravichander’s bailor. Mahaletchimy had spoken to Ravichander prior to the trial, and being his girlfriend and an...