Mohd Sulaiman v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 26 May 1994
• Date: 26 May 1994
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 4 of 1994
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Mohd Sulaiman

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1994] SGCA 78

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

L P Thean JA

Criminal Appeal No 4 of 1994

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–General exceptions–Intoxication–Whether intoxication affects formation of requisite intention–Private defence–Section 97 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Law–Offences–Murder–Actus reus–Whether Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was responsible for fatal stab wounds–Intention–Whether Prosecution had to prove intention to kill–Section 300 (c) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Special exceptions–Grave and sudden provocation–Sudden fight–Diminished responsibility–Section 300 Exceptions 1, 2, 4 and 7 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellant, Mohd Sulaiman, was charged and convicted for the murder of Ang Chye pursuant to s 300 (c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Code”). The appellant admitted in an oral police statement that he had consumed beer and Erimin tablets prior to stabbing the deceased with a screwdriver after the deceased found him trying to steal from the coffeeshop.

At trial, a forensic expert witness testified that some four stab wounds in themselves would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and those wounds were consistent with having been caused by a screwdriver. The trial judge was of the view that any intoxication suffered by the appellant did not impair his judgment and that his alleged memory lapses were due to his desire to avoid giving detailed answers under cross-examination. On appeal, the appellant recanvassed the arguments that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove that he was responsible for the fatal stab wounds; that even if he had inflicted those wounds, he lacked the requisite intention because of intoxication. The appellant further argued that he had not formed the intention to cause those injuries and that the trial judge did not consider the defences of private defence, grave and sudden provocation, sudden fight and diminished responsibility.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The Prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for the fatal stab wounds. The four stab wounds to the heart were consistent with having been caused by a screwdriver, of which the appellant admitted using. The appellant had not shown any evidence that there were other persons present at the coffeeshop who were in some way involved in the murder. The appellant made unfounded extrapolations from the forensic evidence that different weapons were used on the deceased's person and that the deceased was being restrained: at [22] to [25].

(2) Pursuant to s 300 (c) of the Code, the Prosecution was only required to prove that the act by which death was caused was done with the intention of causing bodily injury to the deceased, and that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There was no legal basis for the appellant's argument that the trial judge should have explicitly and specifically stated in his grounds of decision that he found the appellant guilty under s 300 (c)of the Code: at [28].

(3) The appellant had possessed the requisite mens rea. The appellant was not so intoxicated that he was unable to form the necessary intention. In any event, the appellant was able to recount the incidents prior to murder and he was sufficiently composed after the stabbing of the deceased to remove assorted items in accordance with the original plan of theft and also to dispose of the screwdriver by burying it in the nearby construction site: at [31].

(4) Pursuant to proviso (c) to Exception 1 of s 300 of the Code, the provocation alleged must not have resulted from the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Assuming the deceased did take on the appellant with a tumbler of hot water, the deceased was doing no more than exercising his right of private defence over property as the appellant had illegally broken into the coffeeshop and was committing theft therein. As such, the appellant was precluded from relying on the defence of grave and sudden provocation: at [34].

(5) The appellant could not avail himself of the defence of sudden fight as he had taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel and unusual manner by stabbing the deceased, an elderly man, who carried no weapon and was only performing his duties to stop the appellant from stealing: at [35].

(6) The appellant had not made out the defence of diminished responsibility as he had not shown that he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in causing the deceased's death: at [36].

Sivakumar s/o Kurusamy Pandian v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 119; [1994] 1 SLR 671 (refd)

Soosay v PP [1993] 2 SLR (R) 670; [1993] 3 SLR 272 (refd)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 97, 300 (c), 300 Exceptions 1, 2, 4, 7 (consd)

Chandra Mohan (Tan Rajah & Cheah) and Victor Yip (Teh Yip & Wong) for the appellant

Seng Kwang Boon (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

M Karthigesu JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant was charged in the High Court with having committed the murder of one Ang Chye (“the deceased”) on 2 February 1989 between 12.20am and 6.00am, at a coffeeshop at Block 780 Yishun Ring Road, #01-3452, Singapore (“the coffeeshop”). Having been found guilty by the learned judge and sentenced to death, he appealed against his conviction. We dismissed the appeal and now give our reasons in writing.

The facts

2 The facts of this case were as follows. On 2 February 1989 the deceased was found lying dead in the Yishun Ring Road coffeeshop (where he worked as a cleaner cum security guard) in the early hours of the morning. An autopsy performed by Professor Chao Tzee Cheng on the same day revealed that the deceased had suffered a large number of external injuries to his person, consisting mainly of stab wounds. Of particular severity were the four stab wounds to the chest which had penetrated through to the heart and caused extensive bleeding. Professor Chao testified at trial that these four stab wounds in themselves would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that death would have occurred within about five minutes of these wounds being inflicted. He was of the view that these four stab wounds were consistent with having been caused by a screwdriver and furthermore that considerable force would have been required to bring about these wounds, since a screwdriver does not have a sharp tip. It was also Professor Chao's opinion that death had occurred sometime between midnight and 2.00am on 2 February 1989.

3 Inside the coffeeshop where the deceased's body had been found, bloodstains as well as smaller drops of blood were discovered in several places. Bloodstains were also discovered around the window at the rear of the coffeeshop. Two window panes and a metal bar were missing from this window, these being subsequently recovered by the police at the void deck of a nearby block. Forensic evidence adduced at trial showed the various bloodstains discovered in the coffeeshop to be of a blood group consistent with that of the deceased (Group B).

4 In addition to the bloodstains, fingerprint marks were observed on the handles of a beer crate below the window at the rear of the coffeeshop. More fingerprint marks were discovered on one of the glass panes recovered by the police, as well as on the cellophane wrapper of a cigarette packet taken from a drawer of the drinks stall in the coffeeshop. Evidence was adduced at trial by the Prosecution to show that the prints in question were similar to those of the appellant...