PP v Kamal bin Kupli

• Judgment Date: 27 June 2007
• Date: 27 June 2007
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 26 of 2006
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Kamal bin Kupli and others

Defendant

[2007] SGHC 98

Kan Ting Chiu J

Criminal Case No 26 of 2006

High Court

Criminal Law–Complicity–Common intention–Severe head injuries inflicted on victim causing death–Whether fatal injuries inflicted in furtherance of common intention to rob–Section 34 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Witnesses–Confessions–Statements of co-accused persons–Whether statements of co-accused persons can be construed as confessions for purpose of s 30 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)

On the night of 24 December 2005, the three accused persons were drinking liquor for a few hours in the first accused's room. After they had finished drinking, the three left the room and walked towards Kallang. Along the way, they agreed to rob somebody as they had no money. They saw the deceased walking alone along Sims Way, and they decided to rob him, and they trailed him to a footpath near Block 19 Upper Boon Keng Road, where they attacked and robbed him.

An autopsy report revealed that there were six incised wounds, three areas of patterned injuries on the face, and other injuries on the deceased. The forensic pathologist (“Dr Teo”) recorded in his autopsy report the presence of a shoe imprint bruise on the deceased's left forehead and he was of the opinion that the imprint was compatible with the outsole pattern of the first accused's shoes. Dr Teo also observed a laceration on the left parietal region of the deceased's head and an injury over the middle back which were consistent with being caused by a blunt object with a blunted tip. When he was shown the belts and belt buckles seized from the three accused persons, he said that any of those buckles could have caused the injuries. Dr Teo's finding on the cause of death was stated as: (a) severe head injury; and (b) aspiration of blood and stab wound to the chest. He explained that the severe head injury was the immediate cause of death.

Held, convicting all the accused persons of murder and sentencing them to the mandatory death sentence:

(1) The accused persons had intended to assault the deceased to rob him. It was not their intention to confront and threaten him, and demand for his wallet. The fight that ensued was a natural progression of the accused persons' common intention to overcome the deceased's resistance and to take his wallet, and in fact, the common intention was put in operation by their combined assault on him: at [29].

(2) When death was caused in furtherance of a common intention of several persons, it might not be caused by anyone of them. The Prosecution did not have to establish which particular accused caused the fatal injuries, as long as it was established that the fatal injuries were caused by one or more of them: at [30].

(3) The two accused persons knew that they were under investigation for the offence of murder when they made the statements. Even if the accused persons were under investigation for robbery only, as long as they made statements which amounted to confessions which could be construed as confessions to murder under the test inAnandagoda v The Queen [1962] MLJ 289, such statements would be treated as confessions for the purpose of s 30 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed): at [36].

(4) The stomping on the deceased's head was committed in the furtherance of the common intention to rob the deceased. There was no necessity for any specific planning and agreement on the mode of carrying out the robbery or the attack on the deceased. The fatal injuries were intentionally inflicted in furtherance of the accused persons' common intention to rob, and it was not the case that the injuries were caused unintentionally or accidentally, or that only minor injuries were intended: at [38], [39] and [45].

(5) The attack was an integral part of the robbery, and could not be broken up into segments. The whole attack was carried out and the injuries were inflicted for no other purpose than to carry out the robbery. The third accused would be liable even if he did not have the intention to, and did not inflict the fatal injuries: at [40] and [43].

Anandagoda v The Queen [1962] MLJ 289; [1962] 1 WLR 817 (folld)

Chin Seow Noi v PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 566; [1994] 1 SLR 135 (refd)

Too Yin Sheong v PP [1998] 3 SLR (R) 994; [1999] 1 SLR 682 (folld)

Virsa Singh v State of PunjabAIR (58) 1958 SC 465 (refd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97,1997 Rev Ed)s 30 (consd);s 17 (2)

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985 Rev Ed)s 34 (consd);s 85

Imran Hamid, Stella Tan, Karen Ang and John Lu (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution

Gurdip Singh (Gurdip & Gill) and Jispal Singh (UniLegal LLC) for the first accused

John Abraham (Christopher Bridges) and Pratap Kishan (Kishan & V Suria Partnership) for the second accused

Christopher Bridges (Christopher Bridges) and Jeeva Joethy (Joethy & Co) for the third accused.

Kan Ting Chiu J

1 The three accused persons before me were charged that they:

Between about 11.00pm, 24^th December 2005, and about 1.36am, 25^th December 2005, at the cemented footpath between Block 19 Upper Boon Keng Road and the former Boon Keng Primary School premises, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of [them] all, committed murder by causing the death of Thein Naing, male 41 years old, and [they had] thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2 All three accused persons had nicknames. The first accused Kamal bin Kupli's nickname is “Zel”. The second accused Abd Malik bin Usman's nickname is “Jepun”, and the third accused Hamir bin Hasim's nickname is “Black”.

3 The first accused and second accused were from Sabah and the third accused was from Johor, and they were all working in Singapore. The deceased Thein Naing was from Myanmar, and was also working in Singapore.

The prelude

4 On the night of 24 December 2005, the three accused persons were in the first accused's room at 302A Geylang Road with another three persons. They were drinking liquor for a few hours. After they had finished drinking, the three accused persons and another person, Benedict Inyang Anak Igai, whose nickname is “Chupin” left the room and walked towards Kallang. Along the way, they agreed to rob somebody as they had no money. They saw the deceased walking alone along Sims Way, and they decided to rob him, and they trailed him to a footpath near Block 19 Upper Boon Keng Road, where they attacked and robbed him.

The confrontation

5 The confrontation between the deceased and the accused persons was described in the statements of the first accused and the third accused which were admitted to be voluntarily statements.

6 The first accused made a cautioned statement where he said:

We did not have the intention to beat him up badly. We just wanted to take his money. I kicked him first. Both of us fell. Malik and Hamir came. Malik used a buckle of a belt to hit the person. Benedict was standing nearby and keeping watch. The man was punching Hamir's neck. I punched the man's back. I fell again. I was drunk at that time. That man fell with face down. I took back my shoes which had dropped earlier. I used my shoe to hit the man's head from behind. I ran away with Hamir. Hamir's hand was bleeding.

7 In his investigation statement the first accused described the incident thus:

1. 5 About 10 minutes later, we were walking near the footpath along Sims Way near Blk 19-20 Upper Boon Keng Road. Jepun sighted a male person whom I thought was a male Thai walking alone along the same foot path we were walking. He was about 10 meters ahead from us. The four of us decided to rob him and waited for the right place and opportunity to do it. We trailed him and when we saw him turning into a footpath between Blk 19 Upper Boon Keng Road and old building, I rushed forward first. The moment I caught up with him along the said footpath, he turned to look at me. I kicked him at his back...