Public Prosecutor v Karthigan s/o Kalingan and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shawn Ho
• Judgment Date: 08 April 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 75
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 920373 of 2020 & Ors
• Year: 2022
• Published date: 16 April 2022
• Hearing Date: 06 April 2022,08 April 2022,07 April 2022,09 November 2021,01 April 2022,10 November 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Genevieve Pang (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in Person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory Offences,Road Traffic Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Joint Trial,Impeachment,Charge,Joinder,Alternative Charges
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 75

District Judge Shawn Ho: Introduction

The Accused Persons, Mr Karthigan s/o Kalingan (“B1”) and Mr Karthigan s/o Ganesan (“B2”) claimed trial to three charges under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act and s 182 of the Penal Code (“the three charges”). Coincidentally, both Accused Persons have the same name — ‘Karthigan’ — which assumed a certain salience for the impeachment proceedings.

A reasonable doubt is a reasoned doubt, and is a necessary condition for an acquittal: Public Prosecutor v GCK [2020] 1 SLR 486 at [127]-[128] & [149(b)-(h)], and reaffirmed in Han Fang Guan v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 649 at [36]. Reasonable doubt may arise either from a weakness within the Prosecution’s case, or from doubt informed by a holistic assessment of the totality of the evidence: GCK at [134]-[135].

In the present case, nobody (including the eye-witness¹ who lodged the First Information Report,² the SCDF officer³ and the police officers) saw B1 inside, driving or exiting the motor lorry (“vehicle”).

B2 testified that he had driven the vehicle and collided into a railing, which was witnessed by Mr C Thineshwaran (“Mr Thinesh”). B2 asked Mr Sathish s/o Veeranan (“Mr Sathish”) to come down together with B1, thus, there was a small group of them at the scene. B2’s testimony largely cohered with that of B1 and the two defence witnesses. The first officer to arrive at the scene⁴ saw a group of 3 or 4 people.⁵

To be sure, the Accused Persons had informed the police at the scene that B1 was the driver and B2 was the passenger, as seen from the body worn camera footage (see, generally, Public Prosecutor v Chong Chee Boon Kenneth and other appeals [2021] 5 SLR 1434 at [32] & [93]). However, B2’s reasons for not informing the police that he had driven the vehicle — ie. B2 did not possess any driving licence, he had been involved in an accident, and he was scared at the material time — were not implausible. These reasons are found in B2’s police statement.⁶

Almost immediately after the incident, at about 4a.m.,⁷ B2 had telephoned B1’s superior, Mr Mohammad Siraaj Bin Abdul Khaliq, to inform that B2 was the actual driver during the material time.⁸ B1 was remanded by the police.

I did not consider Mr Mohammad Siraaj’s credit to have been impeached. I accepted his explanation that his police statement contained an innocent discrepancy. Given that the Accused Persons have the same name, and the relevant portion was wedged in the middle of a long paragraph containing two hundred and sixty one words punctuated by parentheses, it was plausible that Mr Mohammad Siraaj was confused. My finding was fortified by two other interlacing points set out at [74]-[79] of my judgment.

Taken as a whole, the Prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Accused Persons for the three charges. Accordingly, they were acquitted on the three charges.⁹

Both Accused Persons pleaded guilty to two new charges under s 182 of the Penal Code (“the two charges”),¹⁰ which had been framed pursuant to s 128(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

I set out my reasons.

Charges and legal context

Mr Karthigan s/o Kalingan (“B1”) faced two charges:

You, Karthigan s/o Kalingan, are charged that you, on the 16 May 2020, at about 3.00 a.m., along Blk 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, whilst driving motor lorry, GBG 4004 C, did have so much alcohol in your body that the proportion of it in your breath, to wit, not less than 93 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 67(1)(b) and punishable under Section 67(1) read with Section 67(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed).¹¹

You, Karthigan s/o Kalingan, are charged that you on or about the 20 May 2020 at about 3.20 p.m. at No 10 Ubi Avenue 3, Traffic Police Headquarter, Singapore, did give a false information to a public servant, Senior Investigation Officer Nor Faizal Bin Yahya (“SIO Faizal”), of the Singapore Police Force, to wit, by informing SIO Faizal that you were not the driver who drove the motor lorry GBG 4004 C on 16th May 2020 at or about 3 a.m. along Block 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, which information you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely to cause the said SIO Faizal to omit continuing investigations against you for an offence of drink driving whilst driving the said motor lorry, which the said SIO Faizal ought not to omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed).¹²

Mr Karthigan s/o Ganesan (“B2”) faced the following charge:

You, Karthigan s/o Ganesan, are charged that you on or about the 20 May 2020 at about 2.15 p.m. at No 10 Ubi Avenue 3, Traffic Police Headquarter, Singapore, did give a false information to a public servant, namely Senior Investigation Officer Nor Faizal Bin Yahya (“SIO Faizal”) of the Singapore Police Force, to wit, by providing information that you were the driver who drove the motor lorry GBG 4004 C on 16th May 2020 at or about 3 a.m. along Block 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, which information you knew to be false, knowingly it to be likely to cause the said SIO Faizal to omit continuing investigations against one Karthigan S/O Kalingan for an offence of drink driving, which the said SIO Faizal ought not to omit if the true state of facts were known by him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed).¹³

The Prosecution and B1 consented to a joinder of his charges.¹⁴ The Prosecution and the Accused Persons consented to a joint trial of the three charges.¹⁵

Pursuant to s 128(1) of the CPC, B1 faced a new charge:

You, Karthigan s/o Kalingan, are charged that you on 16 May 2020 at about 4.02am in the vicinity of Block 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, did give false information to a public servant, Station Inspector Ramesh M Ramasamy (“SI Ramesh”) of the Singapore Police Force, to wit, by informing SI Ramesh that you were the driver who drove the motor lorry GBG 4004 C with Karthigan s/o Ganesan as a passenger in the said lorry on 16th May 2020 at or about 3 a.m. along Block 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, which information you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely to cause the said SI Ramesh to omit investigating one Karthigan s/o Ganesan for the offence of driving without a valid driving licence under s 35(1) and punishable under s 35(3) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276, 2004 Rev Ed), which the said SI Ramesh ought not to omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed).¹⁶

Pursuant to s 128(1) of the CPC, B2 faced a new charge:

You, Karthigan s/o Ganesan, are charged that you on 16 May 2020 at about 3.46am in the vicinity of Block 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, did give a false information to a public servant, Station Inspector Ramesh M Ramasamy (“SI Ramesh”) of the Singapore Police Force, to wit, by informing SI Ramesh that one Karthigan s/o Kalingan drove the motor lorry GBG 4004 C with you as a passenger in the said lorry on 16th May 2020 at or about 3 a.m. along Block 138 Marsiling Road, Singapore, which information you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely to cause the said SI Ramesh to omit investigating you for the offence of driving without a valid driving licence under s 35(1) and punishable under s 35(3) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276, 2004 Rev Ed), which the said SI Ramesh ought not to omit if the true state of facts were known by him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed).¹⁷

Prosecution’s case

During the incident, B1 had driven the vehicle and B2 was his passenger. The Accused Persons informed the police at the scene that B1 was the driver and B2 was his passenger, as seen from the body worn camera footage. The credit of B1’s supervisor, Mr Mohammad Siraaj, was impeached.

Defence’s case

B2 had driven the vehicle and collided into a railing, which was witnessed by Mr Thinesh. B2 called his brother-in-law, Mr Sathish, to come down together with B1, thus, there was a small group of them at the scene.

Almost immediately after the incident, at about 4a.m.,¹⁸ B2 had telephoned Mr Mohammad Siraaj to inform that B2 was the actual driver during the material time.¹⁹ B1 was remanded by the police.

B2’s reasons for not informing the police at the scene that he had driven the vehicle were as follows: B2 did not possess any driving licence, he had been involved in an accident, and he was scared at the material time. B2 informed the police of these reasons in his police statement.²⁰

Both Accused Persons had informed the investigation officer, Staff Sergeant Nor Faizal Bin Yahya (“SSgt Nor Faizal”)²¹ about the CCTV cameras at the block and carpark. They also repeatedly told him to check the CCTV camera footage but SSgt Nor Faizal failed to do so.²²

Issues to be determined

The issues to be determined were: What did the eyewitness see (‘Issue 1’); What did the SCDF and police officers see (‘Issue 2’); What did the body worn camera footage establish (‘Issue 3’); and What was the defence witnesses’ evidence (‘Issue 4’).

Issue 1: What did the eye-witness see?

Mr Muhammad Syamil bin Masruhen²³ made the First Information Report (FIR).²⁴ He testified that when he heard a noise, he did not immediately get up to look out of his window as he was sleepy and was about to go to sleep.²⁵ He was sitting on his bed at home.²⁶ It took him about 1 minute before he looked at the incident and another 1-2 minutes before he...