Public Prosecutor v G Krishnasamy Naidu

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 64
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 27 April 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam and Chong Kah Wei (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando) (briefed) and Jeeva Joethy (Joethy & Co) (assigned)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 64

26 April 2006 Judgment reserved.

Woo Bih Li J:

Background

1 The accused, G Krishnasamy Naidu, was committed to stand trial in the High Court on two charges. At the trial, the Prosecution proceeded with the first charge and the second charge was stood down. The first charge was for the offence of murder. It reads:

You,

G KRISHNASAMY NAIDU …

are charged that you on 17 May 2004, at or about 6.20 am, at Sony Display Device (Singapore), located at No. 5 Tuas [Lane], Singapore, did commit murder by causing the death of one Chitrabathy d/o Narayanasamy, female, 39 years old, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2 The accused is a male Singaporean Indian. He was born on 18 May 1961. At the date of the alleged offence on 17 May 2004, he was 43 years of age. The deceased (“Chitra”) was his wife. The accused had been working as a tour bus driver, a taxi driver and then as a lorry attendant prior to 17 May 2004.

3 Chitra was a female Singaporean Indian. She was born on 18 April 1965 and was about 39 years of age when she was killed. Before her demise, she was working as a production operator at Sony Display Device (S) Pte Ltd (“Sony Display”) at 5 Tuas Lane, Singapore.

4 The marriage between the two was an arranged one. They were married on 1 June 1985. The accused was then 24 years of age and Chitra was 20 years of age. After the marriage, the couple lived with the accused’s mother at Block 8 Telok Blangah Crescent, #03-169, and later moved to their matrimonial home at Block 111 Teck Whye Lane, #10-612. The couple have two children. Their daughter, Subhasini d/o Krishnasamy Naidu (“Subhasini”), was born on 1 July 1986. Their son, Naresh s/o Krishnasamy Naidu, was born on 3 September 1989.

5 The evidence established that at about 6.20am of 17 May 2004 the accused had attacked Chitra with a chopper at 5 Tuas Lane and killed her. The forensic pathologist for the case, Dr Gilbert Lau, found two incised wounds on Chitra’s right arm, two incised wounds on her neck and two incised wounds on her back. He was of the view that the cause of death was due to sub-total decapitation caused by a gaping, deep incised wound across the neck.

6 Sections 300 (a) and (c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) state:

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is murder —

(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death;

…

(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death[.]

7 The evidence also established that the accused intended to cause the bodily injuries to Chitra. The bodily injuries intended to be inflicted and, in particular, the sub-total decapitation was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This meant that s 300(c) was applicable. Furthermore it was clear that the sub-total decapitation was done with the intention of causing death. Therefore, s 300(a) was also applicable.

The defence

8 The Defence relied on the defence of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 to s 300. The exception states:

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death.

9 The Defence alleged that the accused was suffering from Delusional Disorder Jealous Type which was a disease of the mind and that the disease had substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in causing Chitra’s death. This disorder was referred to as “morbid jealousy” in the trial. Although diminished responsibility is not an uncommon defence, morbid jealousy is. Therefore, I should set out at the outset some literature about the subject which was introduced in evidence.

The literature

10 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 4th Ed, 1994) (“DSM-IV”) (Exh P191) states that the essential feature of Delusional Disorder is the presence of one or more non-bizarre delusions that persist for at least one month. One of the subtypes of Delusional Disorder is the jealous type which is described at pp 297 and 298 as follows:

This subtype applies when the central theme of the person’s delusion is that his or her spouse or lover is unfaithful. This belief is arrived at without due cause and is based on incorrect inferences supported by small bits of “evidence” (e.g., disarrayed clothing or spots on the sheets), which are collected and used to justify the delusion. The individual with the delusion usually confronts the spouse or lover and attempts to intervene in the imagined infidelity (e.g., restricting the spouse’s autonomy, secretly following the spouse, investigating the imagined lover, attacking the spouse).

11 Page 301 of DSM-IV states:

Diagnostic criteria for 297.1 Delusional Disorder

Nonbizarre delusions (i.e., involving situations that occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, infected, loved at a distance, or deceived by spouse or lover, or having a disease) of at least 1 month’s duration.

12 At p 765, “delusion” is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). [emphasis added]

13 At the same page, a “bizarre” delusion is defined as:

A delusion that involves a phenomenon that the person’s culture would regard as totally implausible.

14 Karl Jaspers, General Psychopathology vol 1 (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Reprint Ed, 1997) (“Jaspers”) (Exh D21) also suggests that a delusion of jealousy may be inferred from one’s behaviour. Page 106 states:

Delusion however arises from a primary experience not accessible to others and it cannot be substantiated. We can recognise it only by the way in which the patient subsequently tries to give it ground. A delusion of jealousy, for instance, may be recognised by its typical characteristics without our needing to know whether the person has genuine ground for his jealousy or not. The delusion does not cease to be a delusion although the spouse of the patient is in fact unfaithful – sometimes only as the result of the delusion.

15 It was not disputed that the fact of an affair is not determinative. Accordingly, a person may be suffering from morbid jealousy even though his partner is in fact having an affair. However, other literature caution against placing too much reliance on behaviour and stress the need for a delusion before a diagnosis of morbid jealousy is made. The literature also points out that the distinction between normal and morbid jealousy is not always clear. I set out below some of the literature on these points as well as on the characteristic behavioural manifestations of a person suffering from morbid jealousy.

16 Michael Gelder, Richard Mayou & Philip Cowen, The Shorter Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry (Oxford University Press, 4th Ed, 2001) (Exh D22) states at p 389:

In pathological (or morbid) jealousy, the essential feature is an abnormal belief that the marital partner is being unfaithful. The condition is called pathological because the belief, which may be a delusion or an overvalued idea, is held on inadequate grounds and is unaffected by rational argument.

….

The belief is often accompanied by strong emotions and characteristic behaviour, but these do not in themselves constitute pathological jealousy. A man who finds his wife in bed with a lover may experience extreme jealousy and may behave in an uncontrolled way, but this should not be called pathological jealousy.The term should be used only when the jealousy is based on unsound evidence and reasoning.

[emphasis in original]

17 An article, “Aspects of morbid jealousy”, by Michael Kingham & Harvey Gordon, in the journal, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004) 10: 207–215, published by The Royal College of Psychiatrists (“Kingham & Gordon”) (Exh D9), states at 207:

Morbid jealousy describes a range of irrational thoughts and emotions, together with associated unacceptable or extreme behaviour, in which the dominant theme is a preoccupation with a partner’s sexual unfaithfulness based on unfounded evidence (Cobb, 1979). It is noteworthy that individuals may suffer from morbid jealousy even when their partner is being unfaithful, provided that the evidence that they cite for unfaithfulness is incorrect and the response to such evidence on the part of the accuser is excessive or irrational. Healthy people become jealous only in response to firm evidence, are prepared to modify their beliefs and reactions as new information becomes available, and perceive a single rival. In contrast, morbidly jealous individuals interpret conclusive evidence of infidelity from irrelevant occurrences, refuse to change their beliefs even in the face of conflicting information, and tend to accuse the partner of infidelity with many others (Vauhkonen, 1968).

18 On confirmatory behaviours the article states at 211:

Once...