Public Prosecutor v Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kan Ting Chiu J |
Judgment Date | 12 November 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 335 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ng Cheng Thiam and Chan Huimin (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 50 of 2009 |
Date | 12 November 2010 |
Hearing Date | 11 November 2009,16 November 2009,10 November 2009,19 November 2009,03 November 2009,02 November 2009,12 November 2009,20 November 2009,04 November 2009,06 November 2009,05 November 2009 |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law |
Year | 2010 |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 335 |
Defendant Counsel | Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 15 November 2010 |
The accused Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran who is also known as “Marsiling Baby” is charged that he:
The deceased Jeevitha d/o Panippan was his girlfriend and lover. He refers to her as “Jeev”, and she was also known as “Ashley”. The accused was 22 years old at that time, and the deceased was 18 years old.on the 7
th day of July 2008, between 8.20 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., at the pavement of SP Powergrid sub-station, which was located opposite Block 154 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5, Singapore, did commit murder of one Jeevitha d/o Panippan (F/18 years old), and [he has] thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
At the trial before me, the Prosecution and the Defence produced an Agreed Statement of Facts which set out the police investigations, including the discovery of the body of the deceased, the accused’s arrest and the recovery of the case exhibits including the knife that the accused had used to inflict the injuries on the deceased. In addition to that, a number of written statements of the accused were admitted in evidence during the trial on the accused’s initiative.
The accused’s case was summed up in his submissions at the close of the case:1
Exceptions 1 and 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 224 2008 Rev Ed) provide that:The Accused did cause injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death to one Jeevitha D/o Panippan (“Jeevitha”) on the evening of 7 July 2008. The central issue is whether the Accused can rely on any of the exceptions under Section 300 of the Penal Code. The Accused is primarily contending that Exception 1 (Grave and Sudden Provocation) (“the Provocation defence”) applies in this case. Further, the Accused contends that Exception 7 (Diminished Responsibility) (“DR”) applies as well. As the trial unfolded, it became patently clear that the factors raised in support of the DR were inextricably linked to the Provocation defence.
The accused’s accountException 1.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
Exception 7.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death.
Eight written statements of the accused were admitted at the trial on his initiative.2 These statements ran chronologically from a statement recorded by SI Ang Ghim Sing on the day of arrest,
In the investigation statements to the investigating officer the accused recounted that he came to know the deceased sometime in November or December 2007. They became friends and were lovers by April 2008 and had the intention to marry. In May 2008, they had a disagreement over something which the accused could not now recall. That went on for several days, and on 28 May 2008, the accused met the deceased and brought her to his uncle’s house. They had a talk in the house, and reconciled. Then, they engaged in sex, and he ejaculated into her over her objections. The deceased was worried that she may become pregnant, and she made a police report that he raped her. In spite of that, the accused and the deceased continued to see each other.
The accused then described the events which led to the deceased’s death. On the evening of 6 July 2008, the accused spoke to the deceased over the telephone and learned that she was suffering from a flu and cold. The next morning, he decided to send her for medical treatment. He took time off work and went to the deceased’s flat which was on the second floor of Block 157, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5. He arrived at the flat at about 9.00 am, but instead of knocking on the door, he took a chair from a neighbouring house, climbed onto it and looked into the deceased’s bedroom through a window.
He saw the deceased lying on her bed with a male person wearing a red shirt. The man was lying on top of the deceased and they were kissing. The accused was shocked and felt very angry. He went to the door of the flat, and demanded that the deceased open the door. She came to the door, but refused to let him into the flat. He asked her if she was hiding something from him, but she denied that and she also told him that she was scheduled to go with her mother for a medical check-up at Kandang Kerbau Hospital.
The accused went downstairs to the void deck and waited in the hope that he would meet the deceased when she went for the medical appointment. However, he fell asleep whilst waiting and did not see the deceased. He decided to wait for the deceased to return from her medical appointment. Subsequently he found out from a friend of the deceased that she and her mother would be returning to Ang Mo Kio in about an hour and that the deceased wanted him to wait for her at Block 155.
To occupy the time, he made an appointment with a friend, Bala, to meet him at Block 181 to keep him company while he waited for the deceased. The accused made another decision at that time. In his words: 6
and after buying a knife from a shop: 7I then decided to buy a knife. I wanted to use the knife to threaten Jeev. I knew that she would not tell me the truth if I did not threaten her with a knife. She is a better talker than me and she always has the final say.
I took out the knife from the new casing and threw the casing into a drain together with the plastic bag. I then tucked the knife at the back of my waist and covered it with my t-shirt. When I arrived at the void deck of Blk 181 Ang Mo Kio, I saw a lot of purple coloured flyers on the floor near to the letter boxes. I picked up two or three flyers. I then went up the staircase and took out the knife that I just bought. I rolled the flyers over the knife and folded one end of the flyers over the sharp end of the knife. I then tucked the knife with the flyer at my back and covered it with my shirt. I did this because while I was walking with the knife tucked at my back, I could feel the sharp part of the knife against my back.
Having done that, he met up with some friends at a coffeeshop, and they sat together. At about 8 pm, he received a call from the deceased asking him to meet her at the void deck of Block 155. The accused told his friends that he was going to meet the deceased, and would rejoin them later with the deceased.
He went to Block 155 and met the deceased and her mother. The deceased’s mother had a talk with him, and then she left him and the deceased.
The events that followed are best set out in the accused’s own words:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v PP
...accused guilty of the s 300 (c) charge, made the following findings of fact in his grounds of decision, PP v Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran [2011] 2 SLR 329 (‘the GD’): (a) The evidence showed that the accused never had any significant functional impairment. He made unremarkable progress throu......
-
Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public Prosecutor
...of the s 300(c) charge, made the following findings of fact in his grounds of decision, Public Prosecutor v Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran [2010] SGHC 335 (“the GD”): the evidence showed that the accused never had any significant functional impairment. He made unremarkable progress through sch......
-
Criminal Law
...be discussed here: Public Prosecutor v Astro bin Jakaria [2010] 3 SLR 862 (‘Astro’) and Public Prosecutor v Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran [2010] SGHC 335 (‘Pathip Selvan’). In order to successfully raise the defence of provocation, the accused must satisfy the court of two distinct requiremen......
-
Criminal Law
...by the words, but would not be so enraged that he would lose his power of self-control: Public Prosecutor v Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran[2011] 2 SLR 329 at [36]. The Court of Appeal disagreed; it found (at [61]) that ‘an objective review of the facts suggests that the requirement that the pr......