Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 15 August 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGCA 44
• Citation: [2012] SGCA 44
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Published date: 17 September 2012
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: David Khoo and Dennis Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law
• Hearing Date: 26 May 2011

V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

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

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.¹ 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 WeiShen Trading & Services Co Ltd. ²

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.³

The relationship between the accused and the deceased

The accused gave the following account of his relationship with the deceased.⁴ 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.⁵ 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”.⁶ 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.⁷

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.⁸

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.⁹

After they made up, the accused and the deceased met regularly and were often intimate.¹⁰ 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.¹¹

On 25 May 2008, the accused and the deceased quarrelled over an incident, the details of which the former was unable to recollect.¹² On 27 May 2008, the two quarrelled again as the deceased said that the accused only wanted her body and not her heart.¹³ 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.¹⁴ 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.¹⁵

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 her ex-boyfriend, Uthiswaran s/o Hendry A (“Uthish”), who lived at Choa Chu Kang. He answered the call, put the phone to her ear and asked her to speak to Uthish. However, the deceased refused. The accused then asked her whether she was going to Choa Chu Kang to meet Uthish. The deceased cried and asked the accused to trust her. She said that if he did not trust her, he could call Uthish himself.¹⁶ The accused then called Uthish and said in Tamil, “[w]hy the fuck you call my girlfriend for”. Uthish replied that he had called the deceased to find out her mother’s handphone number. The accused told Uthish not to call the deceased anymore. He added that Uthish should call him first if the latter wanted anything from the deceased.¹⁷

Subsequently, the accused and the deceased reconciled at the accused’s uncle’s house and became intimate. While they were having sex, the accused ejaculated into her vagina despite the latter’s protests. The deceased cried and asked the accused whether he would really be responsible for the baby if she became pregnant. The accused said that he would. The deceased also asked the accused if he would eventually abandon her. The accused replied that if he had intended to abandon her, he would not have ejaculated thus and he had done so to show that he really loved her.¹⁸

Later that day, the deceased made a police report that the accused had raped her. When the accused returned home that night, he saw police officers inside his house and decided not to enter his house in case they were looking for him.¹⁹ He called his friend, Kartigesan s/o Yanamani (“Kathik”), and asked him where the deceased was. Kathik informed him that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide. The accused decided not to return home until he found out what was going on. ²⁰

Around two or three days later, the accused called his mother, who informed him that the deceased had reported to the police that he had raped her.²¹ The accused called Kathik a number of times to find out how the deceased was doing. On one occasion, Kathik passed his handphone to the deceased so that the accused could speak with her. When the accused asked the deceased why she had lodged a police report against him, she cried and said that she was confused and did not know why she had done so. The deceased then promised to withdraw the complaint.²²

Subsequently, the accused met the deceased’s father, Panippan s/o Sinnappan (“Mr Panippan”), and told the latter that he wanted to marry her. Mr Pannipan asked him why he had suddenly decided to marry his daughter. The accused replied that the deceased was pregnant and had lodged a police report against him for raping her. Mr Pannipan responded saying that he would call the deceased and talk to her.²³

The next day, the accused had a phone conversation with the deceased, who was unhappy that he had seen her father without her. She told him to surrender himself to the Police.²⁴ On the following day, the accused surrendered himself to the Police and was released on station bail. He was warned not to see or talk to the deceased until the case was concluded. ²⁵

Around four days after the accused was released on bail, the deceased called him to find out how he was doing and told him that she needed to go for an appointment on 30 June 2008 for a pregnancy test. ²⁶ They reconciled and started dating again. ²⁷ On 29 June 2008, the accused went clubbing with some friends. However, as he felt guilty about clubbing without her consent, he went to the deceased’s home to apologise to her.²⁸ On 5 July 2008, they went to Sentosa and spent the night in a tent, where they had sex. ²⁹

Chain of events leading to the killing

On 6 July 2008, the accused spoke to the deceased over the telephone and learnt from her that she had influenza and was coughing.³⁰ The next day, he pretended to be sick so as to be able to take leave and take her to see a doctor. ³¹ He went to the deceased’s flat on the second floor of Block 157, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5. Instead of entering her house, he decided to check if the...