Public Prosecutor v Magesan S/O Ramasamy, Mohamed Faizal Ajmalhan and Arunachalam Lakshmanan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Low Wee Ping
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGDC 198
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 33529 of 2012 and others, Magistrate’s Appeal No.—MA 99/2015/01, MA/100/2015/01 & MA 104/2015/01
• Published date: 23 July 2015
• Year: 2015
• Hearing Date: 15 March 2015,23 April 2014,27 October 2014,29 June 2015,05 October 2014,25 October 2014,16 March 2015,13 October 2014,05 June 2015,15 April 2014,23 March 2015,11 October 2014,20 March 2015,16 October 2014,01 October 2014,14 October 2014,15 October 2014,17 April 2014,29 October 2014,03 July 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Crystal Tan and Ms Lim Yu Hui
• Defendant Counsel: Mr John Abraham,Mr Jayakumar Naidu and Mr Daniel Xu,Mr S K Kumar and Mr Krishnamoorthy
• Citation: [2015] SGDC 198

District Judge Low Wee Ping: The four accused

The four accused were:- Magesan s/o Ramasamy (“A1”); Mohamed Faizal Ajmalhan (“A2”); Arunachalam Lakshmanan (“A3”); and Chinnaya Antony Samy (“A4”).

The three victims

The three victims of the gang-robberies were:- Mr Antony Savarimuthu (“V1”); Mr Gulam Hussain Jalaludeen (“V2”); and Mr Abuasanar Kamarulzaman (“V3”).

The defence counsel

A1 was represented by Mr John Abraham. A2 was represented by Mr Jayakumar Naidu and Mr Daniel Xu. A3 and A4 were represented by Mr S. K. Kumar and Mr Krishnamoorthy.

The three gang-robbery charges

All the four accused were each tried on three charges of gang robbery.

The following are samples of the three gang-robbery charges:- “You (A1)... are charged that you, on 10th day of September 2012 at about 8.30 am at No 103 Dunlop Street, Singapore, together with Mohammad Ansari S/O Abdul Hussain (PW2), Mohamed Faizal Ajmalhan (A2), Arunachalam Lakshmanan (A3) and Chinnaya Antony Samy (A4) did conjointly commit gang-robbery of Two Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand and forty-four dollars (S$286,044) in the possession of one Antony Savarimuthu (V1), and you have thereby committed an offence under s 391 and punishable under s 395 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224”; “You (A1)… are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2012 at about 8.40 am at No 103 Dunlop Street, Singapore, together with Mohammad Ansari S/O Abdul Hussain (PW2), Mohamed Faizal Ajmalhan (A2), Arunachalam Lakshmanan (A3) and Chinnaya Antony Samy (A4) did conjointly commit gang-robbery of Nine Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, and One Hundred and Forty-seven Dollars (S$918,147) in the possession of one Gulam Hussain Jalaludeen (V2), and you have thereby committed an offence under s 391 and punishable under s 395 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224”; and “You (A1)… are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2012 at about 8.35 am at No 103 Dunlop Street, Singapore, together with Mohammad Ansari S/O Abdul Hussain (PW2), Mohamed Faizal Ajmalhan (A2), Arunachalam Lakshmanan (A3) and Chinnaya Antony Samy (A4) did conjointly commit gang-robbery of Seventy Thousand Dollars (S$70,000) in the possession of one Abuasanar Kamarulzaman (V3), and you have thereby committed an offence under s 391 and punishable under s 395 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

A1 and A2’s additional three personation charges

A1 and A2 were each tried on three additional charges of personating a police officer, under s 170 of Penal Code, Chapter 224 (“PC”). Initially, A1 and A2 also pleaded not guilty to these three additional personation charges. However, at the close of the prosecution’s case, Mr John Abraham and Mr Jayakumar informed this court that A1 and A2 were not disputing their three additional personation charges. They explained that A1 and A2’s defence was that they had only “cheated” the three victims by personating as police officers. They submitted that this was consistent with their three additional charges of personation. They stressed that A1 and A2 did not commit “robbery”.

The trial

The trial took thirty days. The prosecution’s case took twenty-two days. The four accused’s case, together, took six days. The prosecution’s key witness, PW2 Ansari, was recalled by this court to testify on one day.

The convictions and sentences

The four accused were convicted and sentenced as follows:- For A1:- On each of his three gang-robbery charges – 10 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane; On each of his three personation charges – 6 months’ imprisonment; Consecutive sentences – one gang-robbery prison sentence (10 years), and one personation prison sentence (6 months); and Total sentence – 10 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment, and 24 strokes of the cane (the maximum permissible). For A2:- On each of his three gang-robbery charges – 10 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane; On each of his three personation charges – 4 months’ imprisonment; Consecutive sentences – one gang-robbery prison sentence (10 years), and one personation prison sentence (4 months); and Total sentence – 10 years’ and 4 months’ imprisonment, and 24 strokes of the cane (the maximum permissible). For A3:- On each of his three gang-robbery charges – 8 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane; On each of his two “pleaded-guilty” attempted robbery and robbery charge – 2 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (the minimum); Consecutive sentences – one gang-robbery prison sentence (8 years), and one robbery prison sentence (2 years); and Total sentence – 10 years’ imprisonment, and 24 strokes of the cane (the maximum permissible). For A4:- On each of his three gang-robbery charges – 8 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane; On each of his two “pleaded-guilty” attempted robbery and robbery charge – 2 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (the minimum); Consecutive sentences – one gang-robbery prison sentence (8 years), and one robbery prison sentence (2 years); and Total sentence – 10 years’ imprisonment, and 24 strokes of the cane (the maximum permissible).

A1, A2 and A3’s appeal

A1, A2 and A3 have each filed a notice of appeal against their convictions and sentences. A4 has not file any notice of appeal. I now give the reasons for my decision.

The prosecution’s case The prosecution’s key witnesses

The prosecution called twelve witnesses. The crucial evidence came from the co-offender and leader of the group, PW2 Mohammad Ansari S/O Abdul Hussain (“PW2 Ansari”). The three victims’ testimonies were also crucial on the issue of – whether the elements of “robbery” were made out?

The robbery plan

First, the prosecution’s case was that, before the robberies, A3 and A4 informed the group that illegal money remittance business was being carried out at 103 Dunlop Street. The group then decided that they would rob the remittance agents there. They planned that A1, A2 and PW2 Ansari, would wear police uniform. They would also carry items, such as a baton and identification tags, which would convince the victims that they were police officers. They would enter the rooms at the premises, and restrain the victims with flexi-cuffs. They would then search each of the victims’ rooms. They would take the monies from the three victims.

The group also decided that, on the morning of the robberies, A3 and A4 would provide information about the human traffic at Dunlop Street to the rest. Further, A3 and A4 would ascertain that the front door to the premises was not locked. They were to do this, just before they informed A1, A2 and PW2 Ansari to enter the premises. During the robberies, they would also act as lookouts for the rest of the group.

The robbery plan was executed

Second, the prosecution’s case was that, on 10 September 2012, at about 8.30 am, at 103 Dunlop Street, A1, A2, A3, A4 and PW2 Ansari, executed their plan to commit the robberies.

Three of them in the group, A1, A2 and PW2 Ansari, entered 103 Dunlop Street and committed the robberies. Two of them, A3 and A4, did not enter the premises. However, A3 and A4 knew of the robberies from the outset. As stated, A3 and A4 were the ones who had first informed the group that there was illegal money remittance business being conducted at 103 Dunlop Street. During the robberies, A3 and A4 first checked on the door of the premises. Subsequently, they were also in the vicinity to act as lookouts for the rest who were inside the premises.

During the robberies, A1, A2 and PW2 Ansari wrongfully restrained the three victims. Whilst the victims were restrained, they took away the three victims’ monies without their consent. The undisputed evidence was that all the three victims’ hands were tied behind their backs with plastic flexi-cuffs, as planned. V2 and V3 were flexi-cuffed and forcefully brought from their own rooms to V1’s room. All the three victims were gathered into V1’s room. They were ordered to remain at one corner of the room. There, V2 and V3 were ordered to sit at one corner of the room with V1 and two other persons. The two other persons were PW3 Mr Munuswamy and PW4 Mr Mahaboob. The two of them were V1’s “guests”. They happened to be in V1’s room that morning.

The robberies were successful

Third, the prosecution’s case was that the robberies were successfully carried out. This was not disputed by the defence. It was specifically not disputed, that the gang took away the various amounts of monies from the three victims, as specified in each of the three gang-robbery charges.

The prosecution’s key witnesses’ testimonies were all corroborated by four accused’s statements

Fourth, the prosecution’s case was, that their key witnesses’ testimonies were all fully corroborated by the four accused’s own statements, which the four accused voluntarily gave to the police.

The four accused and PW2 Ansari had committed “gang-robbery”

In conclusion, the prosecution’s case was that, therefore, the five of them – A1, A2, A3, A4 and PW2 Ansari – had “conjointly” committed the robberies. Consequently, the five had committed “gang-robberies”, as defined under s 391 of the PC.

The defence’s case A2 was not at the meetings

The defence did not dispute that A1, A3, A4 and PW2 Ansari met at a coffee-shop on two occasions. They met to discuss about No. 103 Dunlop Street. However, A1, A3 and A4, claimed that they did not meet each other before these two meetings. Further, they asserted that A2 was not present at the two meetings. A2, therefore, claimed that he did not know A1, A3 and A4 before the incident at 103 Dunlop Street.

A3 and A4 thought A1 and PW2 Ansari were police officers

A3 and A4 further asserted that, at the coffee-shop meetings, A1 and PW2 Ansari represented to them that they were police officers. They also claimed that, therefore, they believed A1 and PW2 Ansari were asking them to be police informants....