Public Prosecutor v GFA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Teoh Ai Lin
• Judgment Date: 25 October 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 247
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 247
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 November 2022
• Docket Number: District Arrest Cases No. 921410 of 2019 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9054-2022-01
• Plaintiff Counsel: Rimplejit Kaur (Attorney-General's Chamber)
• Defendant Counsel: R Kalamohan (R Kalamohan Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Outrage of Modesty
• Hearing Date: 18 August 2020,19 August 2020,05 January 2021,07 January 2021,18 January 2021,21 January 2021,13 September 2021,17 September 2021,20 September 2021,22 September 2021,08 December 2021,17 February 2022,11 March 2022

District Judge Teoh Ai Lin:

The accused age 57 years is the maternal uncle of the teenaged complainant. He claimed trial to three charges of wrongful restraint in order to outrage her modesty and one charge of using criminal force on her, allegedly committed on three occasions when the complainant went to collect pocket money from him.

I acquitted the accused and prosecution appeals.

Background

The accused is the elder brother of the complainant’s mother and runs a shop in the Serangoon Road area. He was also primary school friends with the complainant’s father, and they were still close friends at the time of the alleged incidents.

The complainant (“C”) has two older brothers and was about 16 years old at the time of the alleged first incident in November 2016. In 2016 she was repeating her Secondary 3 in a school near her home¹ and seeing a school counsellor because of absenteeism and arguments with her mother. She was close to her father a former policeman, and said she could talk to him about everything². Her father had been made bankrupt for substantial debts in September 2015.³ At the time of the trial in August 2020 C was 19 plus years old and in the second year of her finance services studies at ITE.

Relationship with the accused and his family

The families of C and the accused were close and they would regularly attend family events and have meals together. C said the accused was her father’s best friend and a fatherly figure to her. When they met they would hug to say Hi, and she would behave to him the way she behaved with her father.⁴

C’s mother said their families had also gone on family holidays together. The accused was loving and affectionate to her children and he would advise them and speak nicely to them and they would listen to him. He liked C very much and when they visited each other, he would carry C, put her on his lap and cuddle her.⁵ He would also help her family financially. The accused had also redeemed her jewellery which her husband had pawned⁶. When her family members worked in his shop during Deepavali the accused would pay them a salary.⁷

C’s monthly allowance

Sometime in the period July to September 2016, C’s mother noticed a change in C. C was disrespectful and talking back and fighting with her, and would also refuse to go for family functions.⁸ C’s mother was then also having her own financial problems. She gave C a daily allowance of $5 for school, and extra on weekends and when C had ECA or extra classes⁹. C complained her pocket money was not enough and wanted more money for her outings with friends.¹⁰

C’s mother spoke to the accused about her family problems as it was affecting her mentally. She requested him to speak to her children and husband. Later the accused called and reassured her that he had spoken to C and not to worry about C’s financial issues. He would take care of them and she need not speak to C. C’s mother said she was not aware that the accused had actually given C money and C continued to receive her daily school allowance.¹¹

C’s father said the accused had called him and said he would take care of C’s allowance.¹² C’s father then spoke to C about the arrangement. C said both her father and the accused told her not to let anyone else know about the allowance arrangement including her mother.¹³ Sometime in 2016, the accused passed C her first allowance during a family function in the presence of her father. The accused gave her $200 and her father was aware of the amount.¹⁴ The first few times the accused would pass her the allowance during family events. He would call her and her father to the side, and he always gave her the sum of $200.¹⁵

Overview of the parties’ cases Prosecution’s case

Prosecution’s case was that the accused wrongfully restrained C in order to molest her on three occasions when she collected pocket money from him (1st, 2nd and 4th charges). During the third occasion the accused also used criminal force on C by grabbing her wrist and waist and attempting to push her into a lift (3rd charge).

The first incident occurred in November 2016 outside the Gayatri restaurant at Orchid Country Club. The second and third incidents occurred in the second week of December 2016 and on 21 January 2017 respectively, both at the 5th floor carpark lift lobby of The Verge shopping mall at Serangoon Road.

The incidents came to light when C told her school personnel on 1 Feb 2017. Two days later on 3 February 2017 she was taken by them to Choa Chu Kang Neighbourhood Police Centre to make a police report, after her father failed to file a police report by the 24-hour deadline given by the school.

Prosecution called nineteen witnesses, including C’s parents, personnel from C’s school and the two friends who had accompanied C to The Verge during the second and third incidents. They also relied on text messages passing between C’s father and the accused and other circumstantial evidence.

Defence

The accused elected to give evidence and did not call any witnesses. He did meet C on the said three occasions to pass her pocket-money of $50 each time but he did not molest her.

The four charges

For completeness I set out the four charges below:

DAC 921410-2019

1st Charge

You… are charged that you, sometime in November 2016, at Orchid Country Club, 1 Orchid Club Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on one C (“the victim”), to wit, by kissing the victim’s lips once, thereby intending to outrage her modesty and in order to commit the offence, you wrongfully restrained the victim by hugging her from the front, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354A(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

DAC 921411-2019

2nd Charge

You… are charged that you, sometime in the second week of December 2016, at the 5th floor lift lobby of the multi-storey carpark at The Verge, 2 Serangoon Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on one C (“the victim”), to wit, by using your hand to grab the victim’s breast, and attempting to kiss her lips, thereby intending to outrage her modesty and in order to commit the offence, you wrongfully restrained the victim by hugging her from the front, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354A(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

MAC 907925-2019

3rd Charge

You… are charged that you, on 21 January 2017 at about 2.30pm, at the 5th floor lift lobby of the multistorey carpark at The Verge, 2 Serangoon Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on one C (“the victim”), to wit, by grabbing the victim’s waist and wrist, and attempting to push her into a lift, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 352 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

DAC 921412-2019

4th Charge

You… are charged that you, on 21 January 2017 at about 2.30pm, at the 5th floor lift lobby of the multistorey carpark at The Verge, 2 Serangoon Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on one C (“the victim”), to wit, by squeezing the victim’s breast and touching her buttock, thereby intending to outrage her modesty and in order to commit the offence, you wrongfully restrained the victim by hugging her from the front, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 354A(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Evidence for the Prosecution C’s version of the three incidents November 2016 at Orchid Country Club (“the first incident”)

C testified that the first incident occurred in November 2016 during her maternal aunt’s wedding anniversary dinner held at Gayatri restaurant (now Royal Palm restuarant) at the Orchid Country Club attended by her family and relatives.

She was seated at a table at the back of the restaurant closer to the entrance¹⁶ with her cousins. Her cousins went to get dinner and she was alone at the table when the accused walked past her and signalled to her by tapping her shoulder and waving to come out of the restaurant. Prior to this he had been giving her a monthly allowance and she knew it was something to do with the allowance.

The accused exited the restaurant and waited for her at the side of the restaurant.¹⁷ She approached him and he passed her the allowance. She was facing him and the accused put his hands behind her back and she was shocked. He came towards her to kiss her and she tried to move away and dodge but he managed to kiss her on the left side at the corner of her mouth. Eventually he let go and she stepped back.

He told her to keep the allowance and not to tell anyone about it, the same thing he said whenever he passed her the allowance.¹⁸ She nodded her head and went back to her table and did not speak to anyone about the incident. Later on when she went home her father asked about the allowance and she told him she had received it from the accused. She did not say how much because the accused had been giving her $200 and she had already told her father previously about the amount.¹⁹

December 2016 at The Verge (“the second incident”)

Sometime in December 2016, the accused texted C to ask when she could collect her allowance from him. She did not respond immediately and was having second thoughts after what had happened. However if she did not reply to the accused, the accused would contact her father who would then ask her when she could collect the allowance. She could not say no to her father otherwise he would ask her why. She then said okay to her father and texted the accused who asked her to meet at The Verge in Little India.²⁰ She told her father she was going to meet the accused before she left.

C felt it was safer to bring a friend and asked her female friend RN to accompany her. RN (PW13) was then about 21 years old and C’s older brother’s friend. On the way to The Verge, C “roughly told” RN about the first incident and that she was collecting her allowance from her uncle.²¹

When C reached The Verge she texted the...