Koh Swee Beng v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChua F A J
Judgment Date09 October 1991
Neutral Citation[1991] SGCA 36
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 6 of 1990
Date09 October 1991
Published date19 September 2003
Year1991
Plaintiff CounselPeter Fernando (Leo Fernando)
Citation[1991] SGCA 36
Defendant CounselAng Sin Teck (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterSpecial exceptions,Criminal Law,When provocation could be said to have ceased,Provocation,300 exception 1 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether accused's actions consistent with provocation,Whether retaliation commensurate with degree of provocation

Cur Adv Vult

The appellant was charged as follows:

That you, Koh Swee Beng, on or about 16 February 1988 at about 4.12pm at Block 66, Jalan Tiong, Singapore, committed murder by causing the death of one Tay Kim Teck, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).



At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted of the charge and sentenced to death.


The prosecution`s evidence was that on 16 February 1988, the eve of Chinese New Year, one Tan Ai Soon (Tan) was assaulted by the deceased at about 4pm during a card game which was played in the market of Block 55A.
He was bleeding from the mouth, his eyes were swollen and he was smelling of liquor. Tan`s wife, his sons Tan Eng Poh (Ah Poh), Tan Eng Geok (Ah Geok), Tan Eng Chai (Ah Chai), and two daughters were at home. Ng Eng Guan (Kew Moh), the husband of one of the daughters, came to the flat when he heard of the assault. A neighbour called for an ambulance. After Tan was conveyed to the hospital, the three sons and Kew Moh rushed to the ground floor to look for Tan`s assailant.

When they got there, they found the appellant was already confronting the deceased.
After a brief but heated exchange between the deceased and the appellant, the deceased fled. What happened thereafter was best described in parts of the appellant`s statement under s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) which was admitted:

Then Kim Teck ran. Ah Geok immediately gave chase and followed by Ah Chai who was standing nearby. Tua Lang Par also followed suit and chased Kim Teck. Kim Teck was running towards the direction of Lengkok Bahru and shortly he crossed the road and headed toward the direction of Blk 66, Jalan Tiong. When I was giving chase, the knife I was armed with was about 23cm long and the blade itself is about 13cm long.



...

On reaching the grass patch beside the grass slope just next to Blk 66, Jalan Tiong, I saw Ah Geok and Ah Chai had already caught up with Kim Teck and they were assaulting him.
Ah Geok was using a stool whilst Ah Chai was using the skeleton of an umbrella. Kim Teck was already lying on the grass patch when Ah Geok and Ah Chai was assaulting him. I would not know as to how Kim Teck fell when he was assaulted. I could not see clearly as to which part of Kim Teck`s body Ah Geok and Ah Chai were assaulting as I was still running towards their direction. When I reached the grass patch, Ah Poh, Kew Moh and Tua Lang Par had also arrived at about the same time. I rushed forward towards the deceased who was still lying down and struggling with his hands to avoid the blows, and stabbed him with the knife I was armed with. I stabbed Kim Teck at the region of his hand and leg and also at other parts of his body which I cannot remember now. I remembered that I had stabbed Kim Teck about four times, two of which are on his hand and leg and the other two times I cannot remember at which part of Kim Teck`s body. When I was in the act of stabbing Kim Teck, Ah Poh had taken a flower pot and threw it onto Kim Teck`s head. The others were also assaulting Kim Teck but I cannot remember the part they played during the assault. After I had stabbed Kim Teck, he was still moving. I then heard one of us shouting to run away from the scene. On hearing this, I took to my heels and so did the others but we ran in different directions. I was still holding the knife in my left hand. I did notice some blood on the knife which I was carrying when I was running away.

Professor Chao, senior forensic pathologist, gave evidence.
His evidence was that, among the many injuries, there were five stab wounds, of which two were in the chest and either of these was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The blade of the instrument used would be about 14cm long and 3cm wide with a tapering end. The force used was considerable. From the fact that one of the fatal stab wounds was from the front and the other from the back, there must have been some twisting and turning movements of the body. There was certainly a struggle.

The appellant testified in court.
His evidence was that he was having drinks with a friend somewhere else. Somebody telephoned to tell him that Tan had been assaulted. The appellant was furious. He regarded Tan as his own father, and one of Tan`s sons, Ah Huat, was his `sworn` brother, meaning that they had prayed before a deity that they would help each other and that the appellant would regard Tan as his own father. They would help each other in times of difficulty no matter what the consequences might be. He rushed downstairs. On reaching the 7th floor, he met Ong Hong Thor (`Ong`), another `sworn` brother, and remembered a knife which he had left in Ong`s flat. He took the knife and tucked it at his waist before rushing down again. He said he took the knife to protect himself. (The trial judges found later that in fact he took the knife from the market on the ground floor.)

When he reached the ground floor, he saw two persons assisting Tan and saw that Tan was bleeding from the nose and mouth.
He became more furious. He asked a stallholder selling joss sticks in the market about the earlier fight. The stallholder said he had not seen anything. The appellant came out of the market and saw the deceased carrying two stools. The appellant did not know the deceased personally but knew that he was an unlicensed moneylender, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 26 September 2008
    ...N Govindasamy v PP [1975-1977] SLR 165; [1976] 2 MLJ 49; Wo Yok Ling v PP [1978-1979] SLR 78; [1979] 1 MLJ 101 and Koh Swee Beng v PP [1991] SLR 319; [1991] 3 MLJ 401. In the light of the discussion in Kwan Cin Cheng, the test of proportionality is probably not a distinct requirement for ra......
  • Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 26 September 2008
    ...N Govindasamy v PP [1975-1977] SLR 165; [1976] 2 MLJ 49; Wo Yok Ling v PP [1978-1979] SLR 78; [1979] 1 MLJ 101 and Koh Swee Beng v PP [1991] SLR 319; [1991] 3 MLJ 401. In the light of the discussion in Kwan Cin Cheng, the test of proportionality is probably not a distinct requirement for ra......
  • Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 11 March 2000
    ...such an intention was formed: at [43].] Govindasamy N v PP [1974-1976] SLR (R) 654; [1975-1977] SLR 165 (refd) Koh Swee Beng v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 662; [1991] SLR 319 (refd) Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen [1997] AC 131; [1996] 3 WLR 45 (refd) PP v Kwan Cin Cheng [1998] 1 SLR (R) 434; [1998] 2 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT