Public Prosecutor v Kazi Kashem

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Low Wee Ping
• Judgment Date: 20 January 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 19
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 913088-2016
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 01 February 2017
• Hearing Date: 27 December 2016,05 January 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yvonne Poon
• Defendant Counsel: S. K. Kumar
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 19

District Judge Low Wee Ping: The charge

Kazi Kashem (the accused), age 30, and a Bangladesh National, pleaded guilty to the following charge:-

DAC 913088-2016 –

“You… are charged that you, on the 9th day of December 2015, at about 10.25 pm, at the lift lobby outside Sadia Supermarket & Trading Pte Ltd, located at Blk 28 Toh Guan Road East #02-02, Singapore, did use criminal force on one (redacted) female / 21years old (“the victim”), to wit, by hugging her, kissing her lips, and pressing your hands on both her breasts, intending thereby to outrage the modesty of the said victim, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)”.

The statement of facts

The statement of facts was as follows:-

“Parties

1. The accused is Kazi Kashem, male / 30 years old (DOB: 2 May 1986), bearing FIN: xxx. At the material time, the accused was working as a construction worker in Singapore and stayed at the Westlite Dormitory located at No 28 Toh Guan Road East, Singapore. 2. The victim is (redacted) female / 21 years old. At the material time, she was working as a (redacted) at Sadia Supermarket & Trading Pte Ltd located at No 28 Toh Guan Road East #02-02, Singapore (“the Supermarket”). 3. The complainant is Kundan Kesavan, male / 59 years old. At the material time, he was working as a security officer attached to Westlite Dormitory located at No 28 Toh Guan Road East, Singapore.

First Information Report

4. On 10 December 2015 at about 1.51 a.m., the complainant called the police and informed: “I detained a guy whom earlier kiss a girl without consent. He is currently with me now. Please come.” The location was given as No 28 Toh Guan Road East, Singapore.

Facts pertaining to DAC 913088/2016

5. Investigations revealed that on 9 December 2015 at about 10.25 p.m., the victim was on duty at the Supermarket. She carried an empty box from the entrance of the Supermarket, intending to throw the box away at the lift lobby on the 2nd floor. As the victim was walking towards the exit of the Supermarket, the accused saw her, was attracted to her and followed behind her. 6. After exiting the Supermarket, the victim placed the empty box at the lift lobby. When she turned around, she saw the accused standing in front of her. She tried to walk away from the accused, but he blocked her path to the Supermarket. 7. The accused then told the victim that he loved her and liked her. The victim replied that she did not like him. The accused however ignored her. He hugged the victim from the front and kissed her forcibly on her lips. The victim struggled and tried to run away, but the accused continued hugging her to the point that the victim fell to the floor. The accused then used his hands to press on both of the victim’s breasts. The victim subsequently managed to push the accused away and quickly made her way to the toilet in the Supermarket. Segments of the struggle between the accused and victim were captured on the CCTV footage, which was seized as part of investigations. They depicted the following: a. At 0:17: the victim appears at the bottom of the screen stacking boxes at the canteen lift lobby. She turns around abruptly and the accused appears on the bottom right hand corner of the screen. b. At 0:22: the accused corners the victim and presses her to what appears to be the wall (out of frame). c. From 0:24 to 0:32: a struggle appears to ensue between the duo. d. At 0:33: the victim breaks free. She holds her right hand across her chest protectively, and adjusts her tudung. Her expression is one of distress as she faces the accused. At 0:39, she looks backwards, away from the accused, and looks back again with fear. e. At 0:42, the accused again approaches her. He then wraps his arms around her neck and, as she struggles, forcibly pulls her in a 360-degree turn as he tries to kiss her forehead. He succeeds in doing so from 0:47 to 0:50, when the victim falls to the ground and out of his grasp. He approaches her again, f. At 0:55, the victim adjusts her tudung again. She slaps away the accused’s hand as he reaches for her thigh. He then uses this opportunity to hug her again and presses both of her breasts (obscured by accused’s frame). It is only at 1:12, more than a minute after the accused first approached the victim, that he desists and the duo leave the scene. 8. The victim’s colleague subsequently spotted the victim crying in the Supermarket and enquired as to what had happened. The victim recounted the above incident to her colleague and the matter was surfaced to the complainant, who was the security officer on duty at the time. 9. The complainant reviewed the CCTV footage and later spotted the accused loitering in the vicinity of the incident location. When the complainant approached the accused, the latter quickly walked away but was eventually detained by the complainant. The police were called in thereafter. 10. Further investigations revealed that for the past 3 weeks before the incident, the accused had come to the Supermarket for about 4 times a week to talk to her. The accused would tell the victim that he liked her and wanted to marry her, but the victim simply ignored him on these occasions and continued doing her work. After talking to the victim, the accused would leave the Supermarket. The accused had done the same on the day of the incident but the victim managed to brush him off. However, the accused subsequently followed after her and committed the offence. 11. By virtue of the foregoing, the accused has committed an offence under s 354(1) Cap 224 against the victim. The accused admits to the offence and is charged accordingly”. The counsel

The prosecutor was Ms Yvonne Poon. The defence counsel was Mr S. K. Kumar.

The prosecution’s address

The learned prosecutor, Ms Yvonne Poon, addressed this Court on the sentence. In summary, she asked for a sentence of 9 months imprisonment with caning to be imposed. She clarified that, in her proposed sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment, she had already factored-in the accused’s 4 and a half months’ of remand before he was released on bail.

The mitigation

The learned defence counsel, Mr S K Kumar, submitted a written mitigation. In summary, Mr Kumar stated the following:- “12. In all the circumstances, we humbly submit that there being no skin to skin contact with the Accused’s early plea of guilt almost simultaneously upon the outcome of his representations coupled with a clean record augurs well for a jail term of 4-6 months before deduction as per Vasantha Joseph’s case”.

The sentence

This court sentenced the accused to 8 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane.

The accused's appeal

The accused has filed a notice of appeal against the sentence. The sentence has been stayed. The accused is now on bail pending his appeal.

This court’s reasons for the sentence The prescribed punishment for s 354(1) of the Penal Code

S 354(1) of the Penal Code states:-

“Assault or use of...