Harinder Singh v Narvinder Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Gilbert Low Teik Seang
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGMC 7
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Citation: [2002] SGMC 7
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The complainant, Mr Harinder Singh, instituted a private prosecution against the respondent, Mr Narvinder Singh, on the following two charges in PSS 1025/2001 and PSS 1026/2001

PSS1025/2001 (Charge P1)

"You … are charged that on or about the 5^th day of December 2000 at about 5.00 pm in front of the Indian High Commission premises at No. 31 Grange Road, Singapore voluntarily caused hurt to one Harinder Singh, to wit, by using your left hand and violently pushing the chest area of the said Harinder Singh and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224)."

PSS1026/2001 (Charge P2)

"You … are charged that on or about the 3^rd day of September 2001 at about 4.00 pm at the premises of Silat Road Sikh Temple, Singapore voluntarily caused hurt to one Harinder Singh, to wit, by using your right fist to punch the left side of the face of the said Harinder Singh and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224)."

2. At the end of the trial, I acquitted the respondent of both the charges. Being dissatisfied with my decision, the complainant successfully obtained the Public Prosecutor’s consent pursuant to section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to appeal against the respondent’s acquittals.

COMPLAINANT'S CASE

For Charge P1

3. In the evening of 5 December 2000 at about 5 pm, the complainant who was a maid agent, was coming out of the Indian High Commission at 31 Grange Road Singapore when the respondent approached him and claimed that he owed the respondent money. The complainant denied so and as he was going into his car, the respondent used his left hand and pushed it violently against the complainant’s chest causing him to almost fall backwards. The respondent then went to the complainant’s car and removed the key from the ignition switch. The respondent refused to return the key unless the complainant paid what was due to him. To diffuse the situation and also because there was a maid in his car at that time who had to be sent to one of the clients, the complainant made out a ‘cash’ cheque to the respondent for $200.

4. According to the complainant, the violent push by the respondent caused him to feel a slight pain in the chest area. In addition, he felt intimidated at that time and felt that his ego was hurt. After dropping off the maid, it was his testimony that he felt the pain on the chest and wanted to see the doctor. However, he decided to make a police report first. It appeared from Exhibit P4 that the police report was made the next day (6 December 2000) at 1.22 pm at Tanglin Police Division Headquarters. By then, the pain on the chest had subsided and he decided not to see a doctor. He also instructed his bank to stop payment on the $200 cheque given to the respondent.

For Charge P2

5. The parties next met on 3 September 2001 at the Silat Road Sikh Temple at about 4 pm. As the complainant was walking out from the dining area of the temple, the respondent approached him and for the money which was still owing by the complainant. An argument then ensued between the two men and when the complainant ignored the respondent by walking away, the respondent blocked his way, caught his shirt with the left hand and delivered a punch on the left side of his face. As a result of the punch, the turban and spectacles of the complainant fell off to the ground. The complainant then pushed the respondent away and as the latter was about to deliver a second punch, several worshippers at the temple restrained him from doing so. The complainant then picked up his turban and spectacles and left the temple in his car. According to him, when he was punched by the respondent, he felt pain at the centre of the nose and some pain on his left eye.

6. After leaving the temple, the complainant went to the Kampong Java Neighbourhood Police Centre where he lodged a police report about the assault by the respondent at about 8.50 pm – see Exhibit P5. He next went to the National University Hospital for a medical examination at about 10 pm. He was examined by Dr One Wei Chen and was found to have a 2 X 0.5 cm bruise over the nasal bridge – see Dr Ong’s medical report admitted as Exhibit P3. There was also tenderness felt by the complainant on the left outer orbital rim.

RESPONDENT’S CASE

For Charge P1

7. The respondent elected to give evidence from the witness stand for both charges. On 5 December 2000, he met the complainant by chance at the entrance of the Indian High Commission. He requested for the return of the outstanding sum of money arising from a prior agreement where the complainant had transferred his maid and in return, would pay him the sum of $800. An argument ensued but the complainant eventually issued the ‘cash’ cheque for $200 (which was subsequently dishonoured) in a rather aggressive and angry manner. The respondent denied the contents in the complainant’s police report in Exhibit P4. Similarly, he denied pushing the complainant on the chest, taking the complainant’s car key and threatening him. It was the respondent’s testimony that they only had a verbal argument on that day resulting in the complainant issuing the cheque in an angry manner.

For Charge P2

8. On 3 September 2001, he again met the complainant by chance at the Silat Road Sikh Temple. He was at the temple to attend a private function organised by one acquaintance known as Gurdev Singh. When he saw the complainant coming out from the dining hall, he confronted him about the cheque which was dishonoured. Again, an argument ensued from this and it was the respondent’s testimony that the complainant became angry when told about the outstanding sum of money. The complainant then swung his...