PP v Amayapan Kodanpany

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 52
• Year: 2010
• Date: 12 February 2010
• Published date: 03 March 2010
• Hearing Date: 06 August 2009,05 August 2009,04 August 2009,03 August 2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: Diane Tan Yi-Lui, Agnes Chan and Khoo Kim Leng David (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Citation: [2010] SGHC 52
• Defendant Counsel: Pratap Kishan (Kishan & V Suria Partnership)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 33 of 2009

Kan Ting Chiu J:

The accused Amayapan Kodanpany (“the Accused”), who is 59 years old, was originally brought before me on seven charges of offences of carnal intercourse against the order of nature under s 377 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) on the same person (“the Victim”).

The Prosecution elected to proceed with three charges for offences which all took place in the early morning of 14 March 2007. The other four charges were stood down and subsequently withdrawn. After the Accused claimed trial on those three charges, the Prosecution called its witnesses, and ten witnesses had concluded their evidence by the end of the second day of hearing. The eleventh witness, the Victim, was giving his evidence in chief when hearing adjourned for the day. He did not continue with his evidence on the following day.

The Prosecution decided not to proceed under s 377, and amended the three charges to charges under s 5(5)(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”).

The three amended charges were that the Accused:

Amended 1st Charge:

sometime in the early morning on or about 14 March 2007, on the 1st occasion, at Apt Blk 11 York Hill #03-112, Singapore, being a person who has the care of a young person, namely [the Victim], male/14 years old (DOB: 25 April 1992), did ill-treat the said young person by subjecting him to sexual abuse, to wit, by inserting [his] penis into the anus of the said young person, and [he has] thereby committed an offence under section 5(1) r/w section 5(2)(a) and punishable under section 5(5)(b) of the [CYPA].

Amended 2nd Charge:

sometime in the early morning on or about 14 March 2007, at Apt Blk 11 York Hill #03-112, Singapore, being a person who has the care of a young person, namely [the Victim], male/14 years old (DOB: 25 April 1992), did ill-treat the said young person by subjecting him to sexual abuse, to wit, by having the said young person perform fellatio on [him], and [he has] thereby committed an offence under section 5(1) r/w section 5(2)(a) and punishable under section 5(5)(b) of the [CYPA].

Amended 3rd Charge:

sometime in the early morning on or about 14 March 2007, on the 2nd occasion, at Apt Blk 11 York Hill #03-112, Singapore, being a person who has the care of a young person, namely [the Victim], male/14 years old (DOB: 25 April 1992), did ill-treat the said young person by subjecting him to sexual abuse, to wit, by inserting [his] penis into the anus of the said young person and then rubbing [his] penis outside the anus of the said young person, and [he has] thereby committed an offence under section 5(1) r/w section 5(2)(a) and punishable under section 5(5)(b) of the [CYPA].

When the charges were amended the Accused immediately changed his plea, and pleaded guilty to them.

The Prosecution then presented a Statement of Facts to which the Accused admitted, and he was found guilty and convicted on the three charges.

The Statement of Facts disclosed: The Victim 1. The victim is one [V] male, 17 years old, NRIC No: [xxx] (“the Victim”). The Victim was 14 years old (D.0.B: 25 April 1992) at the material time. The Victim had stopped schooling before he completed his Primary 2 level education. The Victim was not holding any full-time job at the material time. The Accused 2. The accused is one Amayapan Kodanpany, male, 59 years old, NRIC No.:S1071028F (“the Accused”). He was residing at Block 11, York Hill #03-112, Singapore (“the Flat”) in 2007. The Accused is single. Prior to his arrest, the Accused did not have a full-time job and undertook odd jobs. The Accused is not related to the Victim. First Information Report and Police’s Response 3. On 4 October 2007 at 2.17 a.m., the Victim called the police “999” hotline and reported that “THERE IS A MALE INDIAN IN HIS LATE 40S WHO MOLESTED ME. I AM WAITING FOR POLICE AT THE VOID DECK. I AM CLAD IN BROWN SHIRT AND BLACK PANTS.” The location given was Block 11, York Hill, Singapore. 4. Two police officers who were performing mobile patrol duty were despatched to the location given by the Victim. Upon their arrival, the Victim was interviewed by the said police officers. The Victim informed the police officers that the Accused had made him perform oral sex on him. The Victim also revealed to the police officers that the Accused had engaged in anal intercourse with him. 5. The police officers then proceeded to the Flat and placed the Accused under arrest. Facts relating to the 3 Charges under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2)(a) of the [CYPA] 6. Investigations revealed that the Victim had been staying with his mother and his mother’s boyfriend at [address]. During his stay at the abovementioned flat, the Victim was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by his mother’s boyfriend. About 1 week before 14 March 2007, his mother’s boyfriend chased the Victim out of the said flat, refusing to let him sleep in the flat in the evenings. With no where [sic] to go and no one to turn to, the Victim ended up sleeping at the playground or at the void deck around the vicinity of Block 2, Jalan Kukoh, in the evenings. This lasted for about 1 week. 7. On or about 14 March 2007, sometime in the early morning, the Accused approached the Victim whilst he was sleeping at the playground. The Accused noticed that the Victim had been sleeping at the playground at Block 8, Jalan Kukoh for many days. The Accused asked the Victim why he was sleeping there. The Victim told the Accused that he had been chased out of his home by his mother’s boyfriend. The Accused then asked the Victim whether he would like to stay with him, to which the Victim agreed. The Accused then brought the Victim back to his Flat and took him under his care by offering shelter to the Victim. 8. Upon reaching the Flat, the Accused told the Victim to sit down on the bed near the window of the Flat. The Accused then went into the kitchen to get some bottles of beer, and asked the Victim to drink the beer. The Victim did as he was told and drank the beer. The Victim felt giddy after having consumed the beer. 9. Thereafter, the Accused gave the Victim some pills, which were sedatives, to take, telling the Victim that these pills were good for him. Following the Accused’s instructions, the Victim consumed the sedatives with some tap water. After having consumed the sedatives, the Victim suddenly felt sleepy. He then fell asleep on the bed. 10. Shortly after the Victim had dozed off, he felt someone touching his penis and his anus. The Victim opened his eyes and saw the Accused beside him. The Accused pulled down the Victim’s pants and underwear and touched the Victim’s penis and anus. The Accused told the Victim to remove his pants and underwear completely. The Victim followed what the Accused told him to do. The Accused also took off his pants then. The Accused was not wearing any underwear at that time. As the Victim was lying sideways, the Accused applied some lubricant around the outside of the Victim’s anus, and then inserted his penis into the anus of the Victim. The Accused moved his penis in and out of the Victim’s anus a few times before stopping. The Victim found the experience to be very painful. 11. Thereafter, the Accused asked the Victim to turn around and told the Victim to do a “blowjob” on him. The Victim did not understand what the Accused wanted him to do. The Accused told the Victim that he wanted him to “suck” his “cock”. Still, the Victim did not understand what the Accused wanted him to do. The Accused directed the Victim’s head to his penis and asked the Victim to open his mouth. The Accused then inserted his penis inside the mouth of the Victim and taught the Victim how to suck his penis by moving the Victim’s head with his hand, such that the Accused’s penis moved in and out of the Victim’s mouth. A while later, the Accused told the Victim to stop. 12. The Accused then asked the Victim to turn over and lie fact down. The Victim complied. The Accused then further applied more lubricant on the outside of the Victim’s anus and again inserted his penis into the Victim’s anus and moved it in and out of the Victim’s anus. The Victim felt a lot of pain and told the Accused that it was very painful. The Accused then took his penis out of the Victim’s anus and rubbed his penis on the area just outside the Victim’s anus until he ejaculated onto the buttocks of the Victim. 13. The Accused told the Victim to wash up and the Victim did so. After this, both the Accused and the Victim went to bed. Aftermath of the Sexual Incident 14. Despite the sexual abuse that the Accused subjected the Victim to, the latter continued to live at the Flat as he had no where else to stay. In addition to shelter, the Accused took care of the Victim, by providing him with money, food, and even bought the Victim a handphone during his stay at the Accused’s Flat. 15. Sometime in August 2007, the Victim was introduced to a neighbour of the Accused, one Faizal bin Yeon (“Faizal”). Faizal came to know of the Victim’s personal background and his plight. Faizal told the Victim that the Victim could come to him if he needed any help. Sensing this as an opportunity to leave the Flat, the Victim approached Faizal a few days after their first meeting and asked Faizal whether he could stay with him. Faizal allowed the Victim to stay with him. The Victim stayed with Faizal until the police report was made on 4 October 2007. Psychological Report of the Victim 16. Dr Cai Yiming (“Dr Cai”), Senior Consultant Psychiatrist attached to the Child Guidance Clinic of the Institute of Mental Health interviewed the Victim on 14 November 2007 and conducted a psychological assessment on the Victim to ascertain his Intelligence Quotient (“IQ”) on 21 November 2007. 17. In his psychological report on the Victim, Dr Cai found the Victim to have an IQ of 52, indicting that he was functioning at the mild mental...