Public Prosecutor v Shamsul bin Sa'at

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChan Seng Onn J
Judgment Date30 April 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 132
Citation[2010] SGHC 132
Publication Date03 May 2010
Date30 April 2010
Plaintiff CounselTan Boon Khai and Chua Ying Hong
Defendant CounselAccused in Person.
Docket NumberCC No 10 of 2010
SubjectCriminal Law
Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

The Accused pleaded guilty and was convicted of the following four charges: 2nd charge – attempted aggravated rape under section 375(3)(a)(i) read with section 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), for attempting to penetrate with his penis the vagina of one, without her consent, and in order to commit the offence, voluntarily caused hurt to the said one. The prescribed punishment for this offence is imprisonment for a term of between 8 and 10 years, and caning of not less than 12 strokes. 4th charge – aggravated sexual assault by penetration under section 376(4)(a)(i) of the Penal Code, for penetrating with his finger the vagina of one, without her consent, and in order to commit the offence, voluntarily caused hurt to the said one. The prescribed punishment for this offence is imprisonment for a term of between 8 and 20 years and caning of not less than 12 strokes. 6th charge – aggravated rape under section 375(3)(a)(i) of the Penal Code, for penetrating with his penis the vagina of one, without her consent, and in order to commit the offence, voluntarily caused hurt to the said one. The prescribed punishment for this offence is imprisonment for a term of between 8 and 20 years, and caning of not less than 12 strokes. 7th charge – housebreaking by night under section 457 of the Penal Code, by entering into the premises which were in the possession of one, in order to commit theft on items which were in the possession of the said one, and which offence was committed between 7 pm and 7 am. The prescribed punishment for this offence is imprisonment for a term of between 2 and 14 years.

The Accused also consented to the following three charges being taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing: 1st Charge – theft in dwelling under section 380 of the Penal Code; 3rd Charge – aggravated outrage of modesty under section 354A of the Penal Code; 5th Charge – attempted aggravated rape under section 375(3)(a)(i) read with section 511 of the Penal Code.

At the end of the hearing, I sentenced the Accused to a total term of imprisonment of 25 years and 24 strokes of the cane. The Accused has appealed against the sentence imposed on him.

Facts relating to the 2nd Charge

The Accused is a male Malay Singaporean and is 27 years old. He used to be in a relationship with the Victim’s daughter, R, sometime in 2000 and they remained in contact after their break-up. The Victim is a 48 year old female Malay Singaporean and she resides in a HDB flat (“the Flat”) with R. The Accused knew that only the Victim and R reside in the Flat.

Sometime in November 2008, the Accused went to the Flat to visit R. While at the Flat, the Accused saw a bunch of keys to the Flat on the TV cabinet and decided to steal them. He did so when R went to the kitchen to get him a drink.

On 3 April 2009, the Accused discovered through corresponding with R by text messages that she was not at home and that she would return home late. As he was in need of money, the Accused conceived a plan to break into and steal from the Flat using the stolen keys. He thus packed into his haversack an orange T-shirt and cloth gloves for concealing his face and his fingerprints respectively, and masking tape for tying up whoever was at home.

On 4 April 2009, at about 1am, the Victim went to sleep in her bedroom after locking the metal gate and wooden door of the Flat. Shortly after, the Accused entered the Flat using the stolen keys after concealing his face and head with the orange T-shirt. After checking R’s bedroom to confirm that she was not at home, the Accused went into the Victim’s bedroom and switched on the light. The Accused climbed onto the Victim and covered her mouth with masking tape just as she was waking up. He told her to shut up and tied her hands and arms tightly together using masking tape, and dragged the Victim to one corner of the bed. The Accused then tied the Victim’s arms to the bedpost over her head so that her head hung over the edge of the bed. The Accused further covered the Victim’s eyes and face with masking tape, and her face with a piece of cloth or T-shirt that he found in the Flat to prevent her from identifying him.

After the Victim was immobilised, the Accused removed her pants and panties, lifted her legs and tried to penetrate her vagina with his penis. He attempted to do so several times, but was unsuccessful as he was unable to sustain an erection. As the Victim was menstruating, the Accused had to use tissue paper to clean her up after each attempt at penetration. During this time, the Victim informed the Accused that she needed to go to the toilet when the masking tape on her mouth came loose but he simply ignored her plea.

Facts relating to the 4th charge

At about 4 am, R returned to the Flat. At around that time, she sent a text message to the Accused. Realising that R was home, the Accused remained quiet in the Victim’s bedroom so that she would not know that he was at the Flat. After R had gone into her bedroom, the Accused took a hair band and pushed part of it into the Victim’s mouth to prevent her from screaming. He then went to the kitchen to get water as he was thirsty. When he went back to the Victim’s bedroom, he used a cloth to cover the gap under the bedroom door to avoid being detected by R.

The Accused then fondled and sucked the nipples of the Victim. At about 5.30am, the Accused inserted two of his fingers into the Victim’s vagina. All this while, the Victim remained gagged and her arms and hands were bound tightly together.

Facts relating to the 6th charge

Following this, the Accused again unsuccessfully tried to penetrate the Victim’s vagina several times with his penis. Thereafter the Victim informed the Accused once more that she needed to go to the toilet but he ignored her and even tightened the masking tape on her mouth. As a result, the Victim passed motion and urinated on the bed, while still bound to her bed. The Accused then cleaned the Victim up with tissue paper before attempting to insert his penis into her vagina again. This time round, he succeeded. He moved his penis in and out of her vagina several times before ejaculating on her stomach. The Accused then used tissue paper to wipe away his semen.

Facts relating to the 7th charge

After finally successfully raping the Victim, the Accused packed the tissue paper, bottle of water, masking tape, T-shirt and gloves into his haversack to avoid being traced to his crimes. He then left the Flat at about 7 am with the Victim’s mobile phone and cash of about $100 which he had found previously while ransacking the Victim’s room and her wallet. He did not release the Victim when he left.

The aftermath of the events

After the Accused arrived at his home, he re-packed the tissue paper, bottle of water, masking tape, T-shirt and gloves into a plastic bag which he disposed of in a rubbish bin at the ground floor of his block of flats.

The Victim managed to remove the masking tape on her mouth and hands, and to untie herself from the bedpost at about 8 am. She then telephoned her sister for help. The Victim’s sister and brother-in-law arrived at the Flat shortly thereafter to find the Victim crying and her arms still bound. They untied her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ng Kean Meng Terence v PP
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 12 May 2017
    ...164 (refd) PP v Ravindran Annamalai [2013] SGHC 77 (refd) PP v Robiul Bhoreshuddin Mondal [2010] SGHC 10 (refd) PP v Shamsul bin Sa'at [2010] 3 SLR 900 (refd) PP v Sim Wei Liang Benjamin [2015] SGHC 240 (refd) PP v Tan Thian Earn [2016] 3 SLR 269 (refd) PP v UI [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500; [2008] 4......
  • PP v Pram Nair
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 October 2016
    ...5 SLR 166 (folld) PP v Ow Siew Hoe Criminal Case No 36 of 2015 (refd) PP v Pram Nair [2016] 4 SLR 880 (refd) PP v Shamsul bin Sa'at [2010] 3 SLR 900 (not folld) R v BillamWLR [1986] 1 WLR 349; (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 48 (refd) R v Daniel RakUNK [2016] EWCA Crim 882 (folld) R v MillberryWLR [2......
  • Public Prosecutor v Ng Jun Xian
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 16 November 2015
    ...Prosecution submits that the accused’s actions would put him in a Category 1 type scenario by analogy. 40 In PP v Shamsul Bin Sa'at [2010] 3 SLR 900 (“Shamsul”), Chan Seng Onn J in a survey of precedents (including PP v AEY [2010] SGHC 39and PP v Bala Kuppusamy [2009]SGHC 9 10), observed th......
  • Public Prosecutor v GBA (B1) and BAV (B2)
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 25 June 2015
    ...cited cases are markedly different in a number of respects. A typical case of this nature would be Public Prosecutor v Shamsul Bin Sa’at [2010] 3 SLR 900; [2010] SGHC 132, the offender planned to break into and steal from the flat. Shortly after 1.00am when the victim had gone to bed, he en......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT