N Govindasamy v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T Kulasekaram J
• Judgment Date: 06 April 1976
• Neutral Citation: [1976] SGCA 3
• Date: 06 April 1976
• Subject Matter: Section 300 exception 1, Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed),Sections 3, 105, Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1979 Rev Ed),Special exceptions,Whether retaliatory acts proportionate to provocation casting aspersions on appellant's religion, conduct as father, and daughter's honour,Criminal Law,Provocation,Defence of grave and sudden provocation,Burden of proof
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 8
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Lawrence Ang Boon Kong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Datuk David Marshall (David Marshall)

Cur Adv Vult

The appellant was found guilty by the High Court of the offence of murder under s 300 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death. We dismissed his appeal against his conviction and now proceed to give our reasons for dismissing his appeal.

The relevant facts are these. The deceased, Mohamed Azad, a Muslim, was at the date of his death on 16 November 1974 a young man aged 29 who had graduated from the University of Singapore in 1968. In 1971 he came to know a Hindu girl, Deva Kumari, who was then a second year student at the University of Singapore. She was the third child of the appellant, who owned a packing and transport business.

Before she met the deceased, Deva Kumari had been estranged from her father, the appellant, and had in October 1970 left the house and shortly thereafter taken up residence at Eusoff College at the University Campus. Her mother was not involved and continued to keep in touch with her and to bring home cooked food to her at weekends. In November 1974 Deva Kumari, who was then in her final year at the University, was living in a hostel at Lloyd Road. By then the rift between father and daughter had lessened to the extent that he paid for the expenses of her visiting India in June 1974 for six weeks to join her mother who had gone to India in May 1974. When his wife was away in India, the appellant used to bring food, which he had himself cooked, to his daughter at her hostel at weekends and on some weekends she would go home, 40 Kerbau Road, to have her meals. During that period the appellant had, living with him, his youngest daughter, a Primary Six student. He had three other children all of whom in 1974 were studying outside Singapore. On 7 November 1974 the youngest daughter also went to India to join her mother and at the date of the offence the appellant was living alone at 40 Kerbau Road.

Deva Kumari, through the deceased, came to know a fellow Arts student, Myrna Thomas and M Arunachalam who had graduated from the University and the four of them became close friends. The deceased and Deva Kumari became secretly engaged sometime in February 1972. Her parents did not know of the engagement but her close friends, Myrna Thomas and Arunachalam, knew of it. The deceased never visited Deva Kumari`s parents at 40 Kerbau Road and she never introduced him to them even as a friend although the engaged couple had planned to get married after she had graduated from the University. At the time of his death, the deceased was employed as an executive of Singapore Airlines Ltd.

One evening in October 1974 an incident occurred at the Lloyd Road hostel. Deva Kumari and the deceased returned to the hostel at about 11pm and found the appellant and his youngest daughter waiting there for her. The appellant accused Deva of associating with a lot of men and asked her who the deceased was. She told him that the deceased was a friend who was helping her in her studies. The appellant told her not to return to his house any more and left. This was the first time that he had seen the deceased.

The following day, the appellant went with his youngest daughter to the hostel at 7pm. He apologized to Deva for his behaviour on the previous night and wanted to know who the deceased was. He also asked her to go home for lunch during the weekends. She told him who the deceased was and told him the deceased`s name and place of work. However, she refused to return home for lunch at weekends, and in spite of his pleading, she continued to refuse.

On 10 November 1974 Deva returned to her hostel at about 7pm and found the deceased there. He told her that he had just had a conversation with the appellant who was waiting in his car to see her. She spoke to the appellant who wanted to know why she had not gone to the airport on 7 November to see her younger sister off to India. She said she had classes to attend and could not go to the airport. The same night she met the deceased at the coffee house of a hotel and there he related to her the conversation he had with the appellant. The appellant had asked him whether he was a Christian or a Muslim.

On 14 November 1974 Deva spoke to the deceased over the telephone and was told that he was meeting the appellant, at the appellant`s request, the next day at 5.30pm at the Hilton Hotel Coffee House as the appellant wanted to talk with him. They met as arranged and later that evening the deceased related to Deva what transpired at their meeting. The meeting, as related by the deceased to Deva, was a cordial one and the talk centred around sociology, social work and political science and the appellant was told by the deceased that they were just good friends and had no marriage intentions.

On the morning of 16 November 1974 the deceased told Deva over the telephone that the appellant had asked him to pick up a diary at No 40 Kerbau Road the contents of which would confirm her feelings for the deceased. She told the deceased she did not keep a diary and he would be crazy to go to her father`s house. They met for lunch with Myrna Thomas and Arunachalam and the deceased was again advised not to go to No 40 Kerbau Road. The deceased agreed to accept the advice and said he would arrange to meet the appellant at the Tivoli Coffee House between 3.30 and 4pm instead. Deva and the deceased went to her hostel after lunch and there he told her that he was not so much interested in whether she had kept a diary as to see her father and to maintain rapport with him. Later at about 3.30pm the deceased made a telephone call to No 40 Kerbau Road. Deva had given him the telephone number and when he was speaking over the telephone Deva was near by but could not hear clearly what the deceased said. After the telephone call the deceased told her that as her father could not leave his house he would go to meet her father at No 40 Kerbau Road. He then left her having arranged to see her at her hostel at 7.30pm and to dine with her, Myrna Thomas and Arunachalam at Shangri-La Hotel. The time was then around 3.40pm. At that time he was carrying a brief case.

At 7.30pm when the deceased did not show up at her hostel Deva telephoned his house and spoke to his mother who did not know where he was. Deva waited at the hostel. Soon after 9pm Myrna came in her car to the hostel from the Shangri-La Hotel and in her presence Deva telephoned to No 40 Kerbau Road. There was no answer. At 9.30pm she again telephoned and on hearing her father`s voice at the other end she hung up as she did not wish to speak to him. Subsequently Arunachalam joined Deva at her hostel and the three of them waited there for the deceased. At about 11pm Myrna Thomas and Arunachalam drove to No 40 Kerbau Road. Arunachalam went to the front door and called out the appellant`s name. The appellant appeared at the front window and Arunachalam after introducing himself asked whether the deceased had visited the appellant that afternoon. The appellant told Arunachalam that the deceased had come to collect a book and after a drink had left at 5pm.

Arunachalam then returned to the hostel and they waited for the deceased till 1am when they went in Myrna`s car back to No 40 Kerbau Road. Arunachalam again went to the front door, called out the appellant`s name and when he appeared spoke to him asking him if he could explain where the deceased might have gone to. The appellant told Arunachalam that the deceased had told him he was going to attend a National Service meeting and also suggested that the deceased had probably gone away for the weekend.

After this second conversation Arunachalam, Myrna Thomas and Deva drove to the Kandang Kerbau Police Station and a police sergeant Katoni, as a result of what he was told, went to No 40 Kerbau Road arriving there at about 3.20am. The police sergeant asked the appellant whether the deceased had visited him. The appellant replied that the deceased had visited him on 16 November had taken away a book on religion and had left at about 5pm for the Tivoli Coffee House.

Later that day Arunachalam made a formal report at the Kandang Kerbau Police Station to the effect that the deceased was missing and gave a full description of the deceased. At 2pm that day Deva accompanied by Myrna Thomas and Arunachalam went to No 40 Kerbau Road. On this occasion she spoke to her father asking him where the deceased was. Her father replied that the deceased had come, had a drink, taken a book and left to meet some friends at the Tivoli Coffee House. She then went to the first floor to see if the deceased was there. Then she and her friends left.

As a result of the formal report made by Arunachalam the police began official investigations to find the deceased. Sgt Tang interviewed the appellant on 18 November 1974 and recorded two statements made by the appellant. These statements read as follows:

I have known Mr Mohd Azad for about a month. That was on the occasion when I brought food to my daughter at 64 Lloyd Road a hostel where she is staying. She had been staying away from my house about four years ago and that was on an occasion where she came late one night and I scolded her. She felt offended and moved out from my house to stay on her own.

That was the time when she attended University of Singapore. My wife was worried about her and asked me to stop scolding her in future and she would be home again. I consoled her by telling her that she would not be able to pay for her studies in the University and she would be back in about ten days time. However, she failed to return home and I understood from my wife that she was...