Public Prosecutor v Indran s/o Padamma Pillay

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] SGDC 212
• Parties: Public Prosecutor,Indran s/o Padamma Pillay

Public Prosecutor v Indran s/o Padamma Pillay

[2026] SGDC 212

District Arrest Case No. 906454 of 2025 & 3 others, Magistrate's Appeal No. 9126-2026-01

Public Prosecutor

Indran s/o Padamma Pillay

District Court

Lim Tse Haw

Criminal Law - Offences - Hurt with dangerous weapon

Criminal Law - Offences - Hurt

Criminal Law - Statutory Offences - Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Sentencing - Appeals

Daniel Ong (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor

The Accused in person.

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9126/2026/01.]

30 June 2026

District Judge Lim Tse Haw:

Introduction

1. The accused person, Indran s/o Padamma Pillay (“the Accused”), claimed trial before me to the following charge:

DAC 906454 of 2025

On 23 March 2025, at or around 10.30 pm, in the vicinity of Block 8 French Road, Singapore 200008, the Accused did voluntarily cause hurt to one Rakib by means of an instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, to wit, by slashing him using a chopper, with the intention of causing him hurt, thereby causing him to sustain a facial laceration across his left cheek, a superficial abrasion over his right forehead, an intraoral lower lip laceration, and a tongue tip laceration, and the Accused had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Penal Code 1871 (“the Penal Code”), and further,

from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933 (“the Prisons Act”), which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and while the remission order was in effect, the Accused on 23 March 2025 committed the aforesaid offence, and was thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 210 Days from 23 March 2025 to 18 October 2025 for that offence.

(hereinafter referred to as “the s 324 Charge”)

2. After a trial, I found the Accused guilty of the above charge and convicted him.

3. After the above conviction, the Accused decided to plead guilty to the following two further charges:

MAC 907208 of 2025

On 25 October 2024, at or around 2.01 a.m., at Block [redacted] King George’s Avenue # [redacted], Singapore, the Accused did voluntarily cause hurt to Renuka d/o Pandean, to wit, by punching her multiple times, including on her face area, with the intention of causing her hurt, thereby causing her to sustain:

• (a) left periorbital oedema, with tenderness on palpation over the left eye;

• (b) left forehead swelling, with mild tenderness on palpation;

• (c) lip swelling;

• (d) tenderness over bilateral elbows;

• (e) tenderness over bilateral shoulders; and

• (f) tenderness over bilateral hands, with swelling and bruising over bilateral knuckles

and the Accused had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code 1871, and further,

from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and while the remission order was in effect, the Accused on 25 October 2024 committed the aforesaid offence, and was thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 359 Days from 25 October 2024 to 18 October 2025 for that offence.

(hereinafter referred to as “the s 323 Charge”)

MAC 903254 of 2025

On 25 October 2024, at or around 2.50 a.m., at the common corridor outside Block [redacted] King George’s Ave # [redacted], Singapore, which is a public place, whilst drunk, the Accused did conduct himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to Sergeant Abdul Raihan Bin Razak, a police officer, to wit, by kicking a metal gate forcefully in his presence, and the Accused had thereby committed an offence under section 14(2) of the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 (“the LCA”) punishable under section 14(2)(c) of the LCA, and further,

from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and while the remission order was in effect, the Accused on 25 October 2024 committed the aforesaid offence, and was thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 359 Days from 25 October 2024 to 18 October 2025 for that offence.

(hereinafter referred to as “the LCA Charge”)

4. One charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a dangerous weapon under section 326 of the Penal Code (“the s 326 Charge”) was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing with the consent of the Accused.¹

5. I sentenced the Accused to a global sentence of:

• (i) Forty-two months of imprisonment;

• (ii) Enhanced sentence of imprisonment under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act of 267 days; and

• (iii) Four strokes of the cane.

6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid sentence, the Prosecution has appealed against the same. The Accused did not appeal against his conviction on the section 324 Charge or the aforesaid sentence.

The Facts in the Proceeded Charges

The s 324 Charge

7. The facts were straightforward. In the evening of 23 March 2025 at about 10.30 p.m. the victim, Rakib was chit-chatting with his friends in the vicinity of Block 8, French Road, Singapore when the Accused suddenly appeared and slashed Rakib’s face with a chopper and ran away. Rakib did not know the Accused prior to the incident. The chopper was not recovered but at the trial, Rakib made a sketch of the chopper.² As a result of the unprovoked attack, Rakib was found to have suffered the following injuries:³

• (i) a facial laceration across his left cheek;

• (ii) a superficial abrasion over his right forehead;

• (iii) an intraoral lower lip laceration, and

• (iv) a tongue tip laceration.

8. After investigations by the police, the Accused was arrested on 24 March 2025 in the vicinity of his house. At the trial, the Accused’s defence to the charge was that of a bare denial. In his police statement recorded on 25 March 2025⁴ which the Accused conceded was given by him voluntarily, the Accused claimed that he was too drunk to remember what happened on the night of 23 March 2025.⁵ However, when asked about the allegation that he had “used a weapon to hit a victim at the (scene)” and what he had to say about the allegation, the Accused answered, inter alia, that he was “not denying this allegation”.⁶

9. The Accused did not deny that at the time of the offence, from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, he was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act (“the Remission Order”).

10. At the end of the trial, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was guilty of the s 324 Charge and convicted him accordingly. By committing the offence, he was also liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the Remission Order (“Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act”) of 210 Days from 23 March 2025 to 18 October 2025 for this offence.

The s 323 and LCA Charge⁷

11. The victim was Renuka d/o Pandean, a 31-year-old female Singaporean. At the material time, the Accused was in a romantic relationship with the victim. The victim began staying with the Accused in his home for about two months prior to 25 October 2024.

12. Sometime in the evening of 24 October 2024, the Accused and the victim went out for drinks in the vicinity of Clarke Quay, Singapore. They consumed about six cans of beer each during this time. At or around 9 p.m. on the same day, they decided to head back to the Accused’s home at Block [redacted] King George’s Avenue # [redacted], Singapore.

13. A few hours later, on 25 October 2024, at or around 2.01 a.m., during a heated argument at the Accused’s home, the Accused punched the victim multiple times, including on her face, with the intention of causing the victim hurt. As he was doing so, the victim attempted to defend herself by blocking the Accused’s punches using her hands and arms. The Accused landed some blows on the victim’s face, arms and hands. After the assault, the victim called her sister to inform her of the assault. The victim’s sister then called for police assistance.

14. A few minutes later, police officers arrived at the Accused’s home and proceeded to interview the victim and the Accused. The Accused was uncooperative and made multiple attempts to prevent the police officers from interviewing the victim. Police officers eventually escorted the Accused to the common corridor outside his home, which was a public place. Paramedics were also activated to attend to the scene to examine the victim.

15. At or around 2.50 a.m., as the paramedics were examining the victim in the Accused’s home, the Accused, who was still in the common corridor, continued to be uncooperative in his behaviour towards the police officers. During this time, the Accused kicked the metal gate to his home...