Public Prosecutor v Sutherson, Sujay Solomon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng JC
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 292
• Date: 06 November 2015
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 31 of 2015
• Published date: 12 November 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kumaresan Gohulabalan, Ruth Teng and Elton Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Hearing Date: 14 July 2015,06 July 2015,07 July 2015,15 September 2015,09 July 2015,10 July 2015,08 July 2015,11 August 2015
• Defendant Counsel: The accused in person.
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Culpable Homicide,General Exceptions,Sentencing,Mentally disordered offenders,Criminal Law,Private Defence,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences

Hoo Sheau Peng JC: Introduction

The accused, Sujay Solomon Sutherson, who was unrepresented, claimed trial to the following charge:

That you … are charged that you, on 27 May 2012, sometime between 6.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m., at Blk 248 Bukit Batok East Ave 5, #02-66, Singapore, did commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, to wit, by repeatedly stabbing one Mallika Jesudasan on her neck with multiple knives, which act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death of the said Mallika Jesudasan, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Revised Edition).

At the conclusion of the trial, I convicted the accused and sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment which was ordered to commence from 29 May 2012, the date he was first placed on remand. He has filed an appeal against the sentence imposed, and I provide my detailed reasons.

The Prosecution’s case

In support of their case, the Prosecution led three strands of evidence. The first concerned the circumstances leading to the discovery of the body. The second concerned the statements made by the accused. The third pertained to the scientific and medical evidence, including evidence that at the material time, the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I will set out each in turn.

Circumstances leading to the discovery of the body

The deceased, Mallika Jesudasan, was the mother of the accused. She was last seen alive at home in their flat (“the flat”) by her daughter, Sheena Sutherson (“Sheena”), before Sheena left the flat to meet a friend at about 6.30pm on 27 May 2012. At about 10.35pm, Sunil Sutherson (“Sunil”), the deceased’s second son, returned home to find that the door had been latched from the inside. He used his mobile phone to call the house phone. When the accused answered the call, Sunil asked him to unlock the door. The accused replied that he would do so after he had cleaned the house. Sunil thought this strange as the accused never did any house-cleaning. After a few minutes, the accused unlocked the door.

When Sunil entered the flat, the accused retreated to the bedroom which he shared with Sunil and locked the door. Sunil could not find the deceased at home. When he called her mobile phone, it was switched off. Then, Sunil called Sheena to inform her of the situation and asked her to rush home. Sheena returned home several minutes later. When Sunil and Sheena searched the home, they noticed that several things were amiss. First, a bottle of vodka, a stainless steel knife, and a stove lighter were placed on the table in the kitchen when they were not normally stored there. Second, they noticed that there were scraps of burnt paper and fabric in the room shared by Sheena and the deceased. Lastly, they noticed that the floor was very sticky and it seemed like many pieces of furniture had been moved from their original positions.

A while later, Daniel Jesudason (“Daniel”), the deceased’s brother, arrived. He had made his way to the flat after learning that the deceased was missing. Sunil and Sheena informed him of their observations. As they were unable to find the deceased, Daniel, Sunil, and Sheena left the flat and walked around the neighbourhood to continue the search but the search proved futile. About ten minutes later, they returned to the flat.

By then, the items on the kitchen table were no longer there and the burnt material on the floor had been cleaned up. Sunil walked into the bedroom he shared with the accused. He noticed that several boxes which were usually stored underneath the accused’s bed were out of place. He asked Daniel to take a closer look. As Daniel was about to pull a suitcase from underneath the accused’s bed, the accused rushed in and attempted to stop him. Daniel persisted in pulling the suitcase out, and he saw a pair of legs.

Daniel cried out in shock and informed Sunil and Sheena that the deceased was under the bed. He then shouted for Sunil to call the police. The accused rushed out of his bedroom and latched the main door of the flat. He then confronted Sunil and demanded that he not call the police. Seeing this, Daniel grabbed hold of the accused in an attempt to stop him from getting close to Sunil and a scuffle ensued.

Meanwhile, Sunil managed to get through to the emergency operator and shouted his address before putting down his mobile phone in an attempt to placate the accused. The accused demanded that Sunil and Sheena hand their mobile phones to him, which they did. Around then, Daniel’s wife called him on his mobile phone. Daniel answered, hurriedly informing her that the deceased had been killed and requesting her to call the police immediately. The accused then approached Daniel and demanded that he surrender his mobile phone. Seeing that the accused was occupied, Sunil took this opportunity to unlatch the main door and run out of the flat to get help. The accused tried to stop him but he was intercepted by Daniel. In the scuffle which followed, Daniel sustained a cut on his left eyebrow.

Soon after, the police arrived. One of the police officers, Senior Staff Sergeant Mohamed Jasmani Bin Mohamed Hassan (“SSSGT Jasmani”), questioned the accused, who stated that he stabbed the deceased after a quarrel. Following this, SSSGT Jasmani entered the accused’s room whereupon he noticed the deceased’s leg protruding from beneath the bed. When he lifted the mattress slightly, he caught a glimpse of the deceased’s body, which lay on the floor wrapped in a blood-soaked blanket. Soon after, Senior Station Inspector Riduan Bin Hamid (“SSI Riduan”) arrived at the flat. Together, they questioned the accused. The accused was initially reticent but eventually informed them that he stabbed the deceased after an altercation. Upon hearing this, they placed the accused under arrest.

Statements of the accused

Next, I go to the statements given by the accused to the police. Apart from the oral statements made immediately prior to his arrest to SSSGT Jasmani and SSI Riduan set out at [10] above, there were five written statements recorded under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) (“CPC”). In chronological order, they were: A statement recorded under s 22 of the CPC on 28 May 2012 from 4.25am to 5.05am by Deputy Superintendent Foo Jit Choon. A statement recorded under s 23 of the CPC on 28 May 2012 from 12.15pm to 2.00pm (“the cautioned statement”). On this occasion, the accused elected to write down his account of the events himself. He did so in the presence of ASP Tan Lee Chye Raymond after being administered the statutory warning. A statement recorded under s 22 of the CPC on 30 May 2012 from 10.10am to 12.25pm (“the second long statement”) by the investigation officer, ASP Tan Lian Heng (“IO Tan”). A statement recorded under s 22 of the CPC on 30 May 2012 from 4.50pm to 6.40pm (“the third long statement”) by IO Tan. A statement recorded under s 22 of the CPC on 31 May 2012 from 10.35am to 12.27pm (“the fourth long statement”) by IO Tan.

The accused did not challenge the admissibility of the five written statements, and they were duly admitted into evidence. The fourth long statement only related to details of the accused’s personal background so I shall say no more of it. As for the other four statements, the contents were largely consistent, albeit with minor discrepancies as to the precise sequence of events and the length of time that transpired between them. In essence, the accused narrated that he quarrelled with the deceased and that, in the course of the altercation, he stabbed the deceased in the neck with knives.

The cautioned statement and the second long statement provided the most detailed accounts of the events. In them, the accused described that the deceased had given him some money to purchase food for the two of them. After returning home with the food, he changed out before sitting down to consume his food in the living room while the deceased consumed her food in her bedroom. After that, the deceased came out of her bedroom and asked the accused if he had any money for her. He answered in the negative and proceeded to the kitchen to wash his plate. The deceased stood at the door of the kitchen and continued to ask the accused for money. The deceased then turned inexplicably violent. She lunged at him, pulled his hair, scratched his face and tried to pull his shorts off.

The accused reacted by picking up a knife with a blue handle from the kitchen counter and stabbed the accused in the neck, leaving the knife embedded in the side of the deceased’s neck. The deceased staggered back towards her bedroom and tried to reach for the phone. The accused returned to the kitchen to retrieve a second knife (“a knife with a black handle”, as the accused recounted in the second long statement) which he used to stab the deceased in her throat, causing her to collapse. The accused explained in the third long statement he stabbed her for a second time to “prevent her from calling someone”. After this, the deceased’s eyes changed. She writhed on the floor for some time and spoke in an incomprehensible language. The accused stared at her body before retrieving a third knife (a “silver butterfly knife”) and slit her throat. In the third long statement, he explained that he did so to ensure that he would not get “attacked again”. Once again, the accused stared at her body for a period of time before deciding to dispose of the body.

The accused wrapped the deceased in bedsheets and blankets, covered her with some old newspapers and doused her in alcohol (from the vodka bottle and a bottle of rice wine) before attempting to set her alight with a stove lighter. However, he only managed to singe parts of the deceased’s clothing before the fire died out. The accused then took steps to hide the body. He...