Lee Cher Chiang v Public Prosecutor

Judgment Date03 August 1998
Date03 August 1998
Docket NumberMagistrate’s Appeal No 27 of 1998
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Lee Cher Chiang
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[1998] SGHC 263

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate’s Appeal No 27 of 1998

High Court

Criminal Law—Statutory Offences—Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed)—Whether appellant possessed offensive weapon—Section 6 (1) Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed)—Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Possession of offensive weapon—Co-accused playing larger role and having antecedents receiving same sentence as appellant—Appropriateness of appellant’s sentence—Evidence—Witnesses—Appellant failing to call witness who would give exculpatory evidence—Whether presumption under s 116, illus (g) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) arose

Four men were seen fighting by the police. Two men were holding a stick each while the third had a knife and the fourth, a parang. Upon seeing the police they threw down their weapons and attempted to escape. One of them was caught and he subsequently identified the appellant (“Lee?) as the one holding the knife. Lee denied that he was that person but was subsequently charged for possession of an offensive weapon under s 6 (1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed). At the trial, Lee was found guilty and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. Lee appealed against both conviction and sentence.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Lee’s failure to call a witness, whose evidence would have exculpated him according to his submissions, triggered s 116, illus (g) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) whereby the presumption that the evidence would have been unfavourable to the appellant arose: at [21].

(2) Even though Lee’s co-accused had antecedents and had played a larger role in the affair, he had surrendered himself immediately and had co-operated with the police. Conversely, Lee fled the scene and fabricated a story about how there were another three or four persons present. An identical sentence of six months and six strokes on Lee was thus appropriate: at [25] and [26].

PP v Muniandy [1963] MLJ 147 (refd)

Ramachandran a/l Suppiah v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 42; [1991] SLR 26 (folld)

Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PP [1997] 2 SLR (R) 253; [1997] 3 SLR 464 (folld)

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed) s 6 (1) (consd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116 illus (g) (consd);s 135

Shashi Nathan and Abdul Salim A Ibrahim (Khattar Wong & Partners) for the appellant

Kan Shuk Weng (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This appeal is against conviction and sentence of six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for a conviction of an offence under s 6 (1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65).

The charge

2 The appellant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon as follows:

You, Lee Cher Chiang, NRIC/PP No S7703059-Z are charged that you, on or about 6 June 1997, at or about 11.20pm, at Blk 3 Geylang Serai, Singapore, which is a public place did have in your possession an offensive weapon, to wit, a knife with a blade measuring 30cm, otherwise than with lawful authority or for lawful purpose, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65).

The facts

3 On the 6 June 1997 at about 11.33pm a police message was received by the Geylang Police Station from their Division Operation Room to attend to a case of four or five people, race unknown, fighting at the void deck of Blk 2 Geylang Serai, and running towards Joo Chiat carrying some sticks. Two police constables, Loo Chin Huat (“Loo?) and Ahmad Zaki bin Samsuri (“Ahmad?) went to the scene and saw four men at the ground floor of Blk 3 Geylang Serai. Two of the men were holding a stick each while the third man had a knife and the last a parang. Upon seeing the policemen, three of the men threw down their weapons and ran away. The fourth man placed his parang on the ground and tried to walk away. When Loo and Ahmad shouted at him to stop, he stopped and surrendered himself. They arrested him and seized the two sticks, parang and knife. This man was later identified as Sie Kok Choon (“Sie?).

4 Awhile later, another patrol car (“CR 13?) and a group of plain clothes Voluntary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Ishwar Singh s/o Jhal Singh
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Junio 2005
    ...no reason to falsely malign the Accused: Samad bin Kamis v PP [1991] SGHC 38;Ramli bin Daud v PP [1996] SGHC 191; Lee Cher Chiang v PP [1998] SGHC 263. Indeed I detected no hint of malice or ill-will on this part. Further, Pradeep did not seek to minimize his involvement. Before me, he admi......
  • Public Prosecutor v Ng Chuon Beng
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Junio 2004
    ...for a term of 6 months and 6 strokes of the cane: see Yeo Puay Hoe v PP MA413/93/01, Amri v PP MA358/94/01, Lee Cher Chiang v PP [1998] 3 SLR 545, Seravanen s/o Murugiah v PP MA 62 The Court was informed that the accomplice Tan Chee Keong had pleaded guilty to a charge under s 22(1) of the ......
  • Moideen Pillay s/o Magdoon Lebbai v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 10 Julio 2001
    ...false accusations against anyone: see Samad bin Kamis v PP [1992] 1 SLR 340; Ramli bin Daud v PP [1996] 3 SLR 225; Lee Cher Chiang v PP [1998] 3 SLR 545. They certainly did not need to malign the accused. 36. The role played by the accused was pivotal. Without his language abilities, Ramesh......
  • Teo Lay Choon v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 28 Junio 2001
    ...to gain by making false accusations against anyone: see Samad bin Kamis v PP [1992] 1 SLR 340; Ramli bin Daud v PP; Lee Cher Chiang v PP [1998] 3 SLR 545. He certainly did not need to malign the accused. I saw no reason for him to saddle the accused with the responsibility of being his empl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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