Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 15 August 2012
• Date: 15 August 2012
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2010
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2012] SGCA 44

Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and VKRajah JA

Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2010

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law—Special exceptions—Diminished responsibility—Accused suffering from attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity disorder—Whether defence of diminished responsibility made out—Section 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Law—Special exceptions—Provocation—Victim telling accused that another man was better lover than he—Whether objective and subjective requirements of provocation defence made out—Section 300 Exception 1 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

The accused stabbed his girlfriend (‘the deceased’) immediately after she told him that another man was a better lover than he. He admitted to killing the deceased and was charged under s 300 (c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘Penal Code’). He relied on the partial defences of provocation in Exception 1 and diminished responsibility in Exception 7 of s 300 of the Penal Code.

The High Court judge rejected the accused's defences and found him guilty as charged. The accused raised the same defences on appeal.

Held, allowing the appeal and convicting the accused on a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under s 304 (a)of the Penal Code:

(1) To be able to rely on provocation as a partial defence, the accused had to first show that he was in fact deprived of self-control by the provocation. The crucial question is whether the accused had suddenly lost self-control at the material time, ie, when he wildly stabbed the deceased due to the perceived provocation to the extent that he was no longer in control of his mind.The facts strongly suggested that this was the case: at [35] and [40].

(2) The requirement of a ‘sudden’ provocation was met in the present case. The accused had fully expected to reconcile with the deceased and cement their relationship through marriage. There was at most only a brief time interval between the provocation and killing as the accused stabbed the deceased immediately after her scornful taunt. Evidently, the deceased's utterance about the accused's unsatisfactory sexual prowess was sudden and totally unexpected: at [47].

(3) Considering the accused's intensely passionate feelings for the deceased and the fact that he expected to reconcile with her and marry her, it was more probable than not that the deceased's taunt that another man was a ‘better lover’ than he transported his passions to such an extent that he entirely lost his self control momentarily. In the heat of the moment and in the context of the unfortunate couple's overwhelming emotional turbulence, an objective review of the facts suggested that the requirement that the provocation be ‘grave’ in Exception 1 was satisfied: at [61].

(4) As for the partial defence of diminished responsibility, this was not substantiated: at [63].

AG for Jersey v Holley [2005] 2 AC 580 (refd)

Dhanno Khan v The State AIR 1957 All 317 (refd)

DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705 (refd)

Ithinin bin Kamari v PP [1993] 1 SLR (R) 547; [1993] 2 SLR 245 (refd)

KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 (refd)

Luc Thiet Thuan v R [1997] AC 131; [1996] 2 All ER 1033 (refd)

Mahmood v State AIR 1961 All 538 (refd)

Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PP [2008] 4 SLR (R) 1058; [2008] 4 SLR 1058 (refd)

PP v Kwan Cin Cheng [1998] 1 SLR (R) 434; [1998] 2 SLR 345 (refd)

PP v Sundarti Supriyanto [2004] 4 SLR (R) 622; [2004] 4 SLR 622 (refd)

R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 (refd)

Seah Kok Meng v PP [2001] 2 SLR (R) 24; [2001] 3 SLR 135 (refd)

Vijayan v PP [1974-1976] SLR (R) 373; [1975-1977] SLR 100 (refd)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 300 Exception 1, 300 Exception 7 (consd) ;ss 300 (c) , 302, 304 (a)

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c 25) (UK) s 54

Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (Khattar Wong LLP) for the appellant

David Khoo and Dennis Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

V K Rajah JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

Introduction

1 This is a tragic case of a young couple who had a bittersweet relationship that culminated in a homicide. The appellant, Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran (‘the accused’), caused the death of Jeevitha d/o Panippan (‘the deceased’) on 7 July 2008 by stabbing her repeatedly all over her body. The multiple injuries caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He now appeals against the decision of the trial judge(‘the Judge’), who found him guilty of murder. The Judge rejected all the accused's defences, found that he had committed an offence under s 300 (c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘Penal Code’) and imposed the mandatory death penalty.

Background

The parties

2 The accused was 22 years old at the time of the offence. He has three siblings; an older brother, a younger brother and a younger sister. His parents were divorced when he was only five years old. After the divorce, the accused and his two brothers lived at the Sri Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home from 1992 to 1996. Thereafter, he lived with his maternal grandmother when he was young. He has lived at different points of time with his mother, stepfather and maternal grandparents during the past few years. After completing his ‘N’ Levels he studied electrical engineering at the Institute of Technical Education, but dropped out from his course in his second year. He was then enlisted as a fireman in the Singapore Civil Defence Force and concluded his National Service (‘NS’) in January 2007. Prior to his arrest, he was working for his uncle as a movement operator at Wei Shen Trading & Services Co Ltd.

3 The deceased was 18 years old at the time of her death. She used to work as a kindergarten teacher. At the time of her demise, she was studying for her GCE ‘O’ Levels as a private candidate.

The relationship between the accused and the deceased

4 The accused gave the following account of his relationship with the deceased. They met in November or December 2007 through Suresh, a mutual friend. According to the accused, she had up to 16 boyfriends at that time. They became friends but their relationship eventually grew closer. On 10 April 2008, the deceased met the accused's family members, and later the accused brought her to his sister's bedroom where they became intimate. This led the deceased to say in Tamil, ‘Now you have done everything to me, so you are my boyfriend. I hope you will not leave me.’ The accused replied ‘ [y]a, obviously you are my girl’. The accused's family, however, disapproved of their relationship. According to the accused's mother, the deceased would often ask for money from the accused and the accused's relationship with his family became strained because of this.

5 Their relationship hit a difficult patch in May 2008, when the deceased began to meet a male friend, one Kesh, frequently. The accused became suspicious about her relationship with Kesh and obtained Kesh's telephone number to call him and ascertain the nature of the relationship. Kesh, who said that the deceased had never told him about the accused, claimed that the deceased was interested in him although he already had a girlfriend. He stated that he kissed the deceased and fondled her at a void deck. Immediately after calling Kesh, the accused called the deceased and told her that he hoped that she did not hide anything from him. She replied that she had never hidden anything from him. The accused then told her that he had spoken with Kesh and asked her to meet him at the study corner at Blk 155 Ang Mo Kio, which was near her house.

6 When they met, the deceased immediately hugged him and started tearing. She admitted that she had lied about her relationship with Kesh and that they had kissed and fondled each other. She then promised him that she would refrain from having any further contact with Kesh. The accused then hugged and kissed her. He forgave her and told her that she was not to repeat the same conduct.

7 After they made up, the accused and the deceased met regularly and were often intimate. In May 2008, the accused wanted to take up a part-time course in Petroleum and Chemical Process Technology at ITE College East, but he deferred his application because the deceased wanted to retake her GCE ‘O’ Level examination but lacked the financial means to do so. He obtained money purportedly for his own school fees from his grandmother and gave the money to the deceased for her examination fees.

8 On 25 May 2008, the accused and the deceased quarrelled over an incident, the details of which the former was unable to recollect. On 27 May 2008, the two quarrelled again as the deceased said that the accused only wanted her body and not her heart. On 28 May 2008, the deceased called the accused to inform him that she wanted to visit her sworn brother at Choa Chu Kang and that she did not have any money. The accused then decided to meet her. However, he knew that if he had said that he wanted to meet her, the deceased would not have agreed to this. Hence, he lied to her saying that he would transfer some money into his friend's account and that she could collect the money from his friend at Admiralty MRT station. He then went to Admiralty MRT station so that he could meet her. At the station, he saw her with her sworn bother, went up to her, grabbed her hand and told her sworn brother to leave. While the deceased was being pulled along, she made a call on her handphone claiming, ‘ [h]ello, hello Police, my boyfriend just kidnapped me’. The accused grabbed her handphone and cut off the line. He pulled her into a taxi and went to his uncle's house.

9 After they alighted from the taxi and were walking towards the accused's uncle's house, the accused noticed that the deceased's handphone was ringing and that the caller was...