Nadarajan s/o S Raman v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Abdul Rahim B A Jalil
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 53
• Citation: [2001] SGDC 53
• Published date: 19 April 2005

Nadarajan s/o S Raman...appellant

v

Public Prosecutor ...respondent

Citation:	MA No 40 of 2001
Jurisdiction:	Singapore
Date:	2001:02:16
	2001:02:06, 2001:02:05, 2001:01:16, 2000:12:22, 2000:12:15
Court:	Subordinate Courts
Coram:	Abdul Rahim Jalil, District Judge
Counsel:	B Ganesh (Ganesha & Partners) for the appellant
	Wong Li Tien (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Judgment

The accused, Nadarajan s/o S Raman, was convicted after trial of the following charge:

You, Nadarajan s/o S Raman, male/25 yrs, NRIC No: S7520960F, are charged that you, on the 20^th day of February 2000, at or about 3.00 a.m., somewhere near the taxi stand of Clarke Quay, Singapore, which is a public place, did consort with one Adrian Stanley Raj s/o Selvarajoo, who had in his possession an offensive weapon, to wit, a dagger, in contravention of Section 6 of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Chapter 65, in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that you knew that the said Adrian Stanley Raj s/o Selvarajoo had in his possession such weapon, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 8(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Chapter 65.

Evidence adduced by the prosecution

2. The prosection’s case rested on the evidence of the main prosecution witness, Adrian Stanley Raj (‘Adrian’). Adrian testified that on 19^th February 2000 at about 5 p.m. he felt bored and called the accused to ask if there was work at Glitters Pub where the accused was working as a bouncer. The accused told Adrian that there was work for him that night and as a result, Adrian went to Glitters Pub at 7.30 p.m. that evening. After Adrian had finished working, his friend, one Suresh, came to pick him up at about 2.45 a.m. on 20^th February 2000. Suresh came with two other friends in his lorry. The four of them then discussed with the accused and they agreed to go to Clarke Quay for supper. According to Adrian, when they reached Clarke Quay, he saw the accused there with a few of his friends, including the accused’s girlfriend and a friend known as Charles, on the road pavement behind the taxi stand. Suresh parked his lorry along the roadside behind the taxi stand and he, Adrian and his two friends got out of the lorry and stood at the road pavement.

3. Adrian said that a few minutes after his arrival, the accused went to him when he was near to Suresh’s lorry and passed him a dagger to hold on to. The accused handed the dagger in a black leather sheath to him. According to Adrian, the accused merely told him to hold on to the dagger but he did not specify what purpose it was for and for how long he was to keep it. As it was uncomfortable for him to hold on to the dagger, he decided to leave it in Suresh’s lorry. Adrian clarified that the dagger was bulky and he did not want to hold it in his hand or pocket. Thus he slipped it under the sunshield on top of the driver’s cabin of the lorry.

4. Adrian added that no one else was around when the accused came over to hand the dagger over to him and Suresh and his two friends were then talking among themselves and to some other people some distance away. The accused’s friends were also about 4.7 metres away from Adrian and the accused.

5. A few minutes later, a fight broke out involving some people who looked like foreigners at the taxi stand. Adrian then went to where Suresh and his friends were and they decided that they should go elsewhere for supper. Adrian and Suresh boarded Suresh’s lorry. Thereafter, Suresh drove the lorry and made a U-turn and parked at the opposite side of the road to wait for Suresh’s friends. After parking, a police patrol car came and stopped beside Suresh’s lorry. The policemen got out of their vehicle and checked the particulars of Suresh and Adrian. They then started to check the lorry. On checking, one of the policemen found the dagger at the place where Adrian had earlier placed it, that is, under the sunshield of the driver’s cabin. Adrian was placed under arrest.

6. Adrian was subsequently charged and convicted for an offence of possession of an offensive weapon under section 22(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act and was sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment.

Findings at end of case for the prosecution

7. The accused made no submission that there was no case to answer at the end of the prosecution’s case.

8. I considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution. There was evidence that on the date, time and place as stated in the charge, Adrian had contravened section 6 of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act by having a dagger with him. With regard to whether the accused had consorted with Adrian, ‘consort’ is defined in ‘Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English’ as ‘pass time in the company off’ and in ‘The Oxford Concise Dictionary’ as ‘class or bring together, keep company, (with)’. In the present case, the...