Lim Heng Soon and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGFC 9
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No Y14 of 1968
• Date: 14 November 1969
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1969
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Marshall (David Marshall)
• Citation: [1969] SGFC 9
• Defendant Counsel: KS Rajah and Isaac Paul Ratnam (Deputy Public Prosecutor),Syed Esa Almenoar (Ibrahim & Almenoar)
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Irregularities in proceedings,Whether non-direction is misdirection,Summing up by trial judge to jury,Murder,Evidence handed over to jury after retiring to consider verdict,Evidence produced at trial not marked as exhibit,Whether amounted to introduction of further evidence after jury retired to consider verdict,Whether trial judge misdirected jury,Criminal Law,Direction on common intention,Offences,Murder in furtherance of common intention -ss 34, 302 Penal Code (Cap 119, 1955 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

This is an appeal by the appellants against their convictions on a joint charge of murder. They were charged as follows:

That you, Lim Heng Soon @ Ah Soon and Low Ngah Ngah @ Low May Koon @ Ngah Ngah on or about 5 February 1968, at about 11.20pm at Bukit Timah Road, sixth milestone, Singapore, together with one other person unknown, in furtherance of the common intention of all of you committed murder by causing the death of one Munusamy s/o Doresamy, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 read with s 34 of the said Code (Cap 119).

The deceased Munusamy was a detective in the Singapore Police Force. On the night of 5 February 1968 he was seen by a friend, Kuppusamy, arresting an unknown male Chinese at a lane off Annamalai Avenue and then leading his captive along Annamalai Avenue towards Bukit Timah Road. The deceased was next seen by another friend, Krishnan, talking with a male Chinese beside a public telephone booth near the junction of Annamalai Avenue and Bukit Timah Road. Krishnan was at the rooftop of a foodstall which was a few feet away from the telephone booth and was repairing the roof. Krishnan overheard the male Chinese asking the deceased to let him go as he had done nothing. Krishnan moved to a position on the roof nearer the telephone booth and squatted facing away from Bukit Timah Road and in the direction of a five-foot way which runs off Annamalai Avenue and parallel to Bukit Timah Road.

While in that position he saw three other male Chinese walking together along the five-foot way from the direction of Annamalai Avenue. They rushed across a foot-bridge towards where the deceased was standing with his captive and one of them knocked against the deceased enabling the captive to run away. The three Chinese then took positions, one behind the deceased, one on his right and one on his left and the deceased was held by two of them. He was then stabbed by the two who were beside him and fell down with the upper portion of his person lying on some aerated water cases. In that half-reclining position he managed to fire some shots from a revolver at one of the Chinese who was bending down in a manner as if to stab him again. Krishnan heard the sound of gunfire and saw green and red flame on the chest of the Chinese who was bending over the deceased.

Krishnan while witnessing this assault jumped down from the roof and ran to a bus shelter near by and while he was there he saw three persons walking abreast in the direction of Annamalai Avenue. He saw one of them, who was the centre one of the three, fall or appearing to fall and then being assisted along by the other two. He then went towards where the deceased was assaulted and found him lying on the ground with stab wounds. He subsequently accompanied the deceased in an ambulance which took the deceased to the Thomson Road Hospital. While he was outside the hospital, where he had been told to wait, he saw a green car and in it were three persons, two male and a female. He then saw a trolley or wheel chair being brought from the hospital on which one of the two males was put. This male person, who had on a sleeveless singlet at the time, he recognised as the `person who stabbed the first stab` and whose chest he saw aflame when he heard the sound of gunfire.

At an identification parade Krishnan identified the second appellant as one of the three male Chinese who took part in the stabbing of the deceased on 5 February 1968. The first appellant was examined by a doctor of the Thomson Road Hospital at about 12.45am on 6 February and found to have two bullet wounds one about three inches from the mid-line between the third and fourth ribs (hereinafter referred to as `the lower wound`), the other about six inches from the mid-line between the tenth and eleventh ribs (hereinafter referred to as `the higher wound`) on the left side of the front of the chest. X-rays were taken and the doctor then operated on the first appellant at about 3am the same evening and extracted two bullets, one from the left side of the tenth intercostal space and the other which was found embedded in the muscle in the abdominal wall. The doctor also found that the tenth and 11th ribs were fractured and the fractures were comminuted fractures.

An autopsy was performed on the deceased detective and the pathologist gave evidence that he found six triradiate incised and clear cut stab wounds all in the area of the chest and a small degloving abrasion over the palmar surface of the right thumb adjacent to the inter-phalangeal joint and that he certified the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage from multiple stab wounds. The six stab wounds apart from one of one cm deep ranged from a depth of seven cm to 13 cm.

The pathologist stated it was likely that each of those stab wounds was caused by `a sharp-pointed weapon with three edges, three sharp edges, such as a bearing scraper`. When he was giving evidence at the trial, the Deputy Public Prosecutor produced for him to see an instrument and the following questions and answers appeared in the transcript:

Q: Now you have described the weapon that could have caused this one as a bearing scraper, something with sharp edges and with a point - would it be consistent with a weapon of this kind here?

A: Yes.

His Lordship: What is that?

Q: That would be a bearing scraper, doctor - you have it in mind? (DPP produces a bearing scraper).

A: Yes.

Q: The kind of weapon -

A: The kind of weapon that was used.

Mr Khoo: My Lord, It cannot be produced by any means. This is downright prejudicial.

His Lordship: He is just showing what a bearing scraper is.

DPP: Yes, this is to let them understand,

Another witness, Neo Yew, a bus conductor who owned a green Morris Oxford car was woken up by his wife at about 11.30pm on 5 February 1968 and as a result of what his wife told him he got up, opened the door of his house and saw three persons outside, one of whom was injured. He knew the injured person as Ah Soon (the first appellant) and one of the other two as Ngah Ngah (the second appellant) and the third as Sim Tua Poon. He was asked to take the injured person in his car to `the dispensary`. He went into his house to change and on going out he saw the second appellant assisting, the first appellant to get into the rear seat and saw blood on his chest. He then took them in his car and while driving he asked what the matter was and the second appellant replied that there had been a fight `outside Bukit Timah` with a detective who had opened fire and hit the first appellant. The first appellant also said he had a fight with a detective who opened fire and hit him. On hearing this, Neo Yew became frightened and instead of taking them to the hospital, which he had intended to, drove them to a place called `Ya Kar`, switched off the engine and told them he did not want to take them to hospital as he was frightened.

At that time and at `Ya Kar` a woman whom Neo Yew described as `Ah Soon`s friend, appeared to me like his fiancee`, came along and subsequently Neo Yew, with the first appellant and the girl friend sitting in the rear seat, drove to the Thomson Road Hospital. During the journey to the hospital he heard the first appellant telling the girl friend that if she was asked she was to say that they had been to see a Hokkien opera in the kampong and after the opera as they were hungry they went to have food at a stall in Bukit Timah Road and on arriving there some people were fighting and a detective opened fire and hit the first appellant. On arriving at the Thomson Road Hospital the first appellant was taken by a hospital attendant into the hospital in a wheel chair.

On 2 April 1968 Neo Yew was shown a male Chinese at the CID and he identified him as Ngah, the person who had helped Ah Soon into the car on the night of 5 February 1968. He also identified the first and second appellants at the trial as Ah Soon and Ngah Ngah respectively both of whom were known to him before 5 February 1968.

At 11.15am the next day a postman found a gun in the pillar post-box at the junction of Holland Road and Pierce Road which he took and handed over to a police officer at the Holland Road Police Station. The collection times for that particular post-box were 11.15am and 4.30pm daily. The gun was a .38 revolver bearing a Singapore Police Force registration number 294 as well as the manufacturer`s number and was the gun issued to the deceased.

A witness Ang Su Hoo who lived in a kampong at Jalan Tua also known as `Ya Kar`, having gone to bed after 11pm on the night of 5 February 1968 was awakened by a commotion in the kampong. He went out and saw a car with Neo Yew in the driver`s seat and two men and a girl in the rear seat. The two men were Ah Soon (the first appellant) and Ngah...