Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 191
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher Ong Siu Jiu and Crystal Ong (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Published date: 30 October 2006
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju (S K Kumar & Associates)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences,Accused charged for rape and various other related offences,Accused and complainant having consensual sexual relations regularly before date of alleged offence,Accused and complainant advancing diametrically opposed versions of events,Whether testimony of accused or of victim to be believed,Whether each offence proved beyond reasonable doubt

27 October 2006 Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The accused is a 29-year-old Bangladeshi national named Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik. He has had eight years of schooling in Bangladesh and can speak simple English. He first came to Singapore on 15 February 2004 and worked as a cleaner. Sometime in May 2005, the accused started work as a cleaner at the Bedok branch of Giant Hypermarket (“Giant”).

2 The complainant is 31 years old. She is currently a housewife, but she previously worked at Giant. She has three children, currently aged nine, six and two. Her husband testified as a Prosecution witness at trial.

3 The accused faced a total of eight charges:

(a) The first charge is for aggravated rape under s 376(2)(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed).

(b) The second charge is for criminal intimidation (in pointing a knife at the complainant with the intention to cause alarm to her) under s 506 of the Penal Code.

(c) The third charge is for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature (sodomy, in this instance) under s 377 of the Penal Code.

(d) The fourth charge is for insulting the complainant’s modesty under s 509 of the Penal Code by taking four nude photographs of the complainant.

(e) The fifth charge is for criminal intimidation (in threatening to distribute nude photographs of the complainant) under s 506 of the Penal Code.

(g) The sixth charge is for rape under s 376(1) of the Penal Code.

(h) The seventh charge is for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature (sodomy, in this instance) under s 377 of the Penal Code.

(i) The eighth charge is for theft (of the complainant’s identity card, bank card, and a pair of gold-coloured earrings) under s 379 of the Penal Code.

It was alleged that all the offences took place on the afternoon of 23 December 2005 at the accused’s flat at 174B Joo Chiat Place (“the flat”).

The complainant’s version of events that occurred before the day of the alleged incidents

4 The accused and complainant were colleagues at Giant and became acquainted in May or June 2005. They chatted while working and eventually exchanged text messages and had conversations on the telephone. Sometime in June 2005, the accused and the complainant went to Mustafa Centre together. Whilst there, the accused suggested checking into a hotel as he was not feeling well. The complainant guessed that the accused wanted to have sexual intercourse with her and proceeded to the hotel nonetheless, and there had sexual intercourse with him. After this incident, they went to the same hotel almost every week to have sexual intercourse. They usually did so after the complainant finished work at Giant.

5 In August 2005, the complainant initiated divorce proceedings against her husband. She testified that she had done so because her husband did not have a proper job and was avoiding his responsibility as breadwinner of the family. The accused and the complainant made plans to marry once her divorce had been finalised. According the complainant, her relationship with the accused had nothing to do with her decision to divorce her husband. When asked under cross-examination whether she was in love with her husband, her answer was “I don’t know” and “I’m still struggling to go through what I’m going through right now”.

6 In October 2005, the accused’s work permit in Singapore expired. He returned to Bangladesh on the evening of 12 October 2005. Both the accused and the complainant confirmed that on the morning of 12 October 2005, before the accused flew back to Bangladesh, the complainant had visited him at the flat and they had sexual intercourse there. According to the complainant, that was the last time that they had sexual intercourse (although the accused testified that they had sexual intercourse again on 6 December 2005: see [14] below). While the accused was in Bangladesh, he and the complainant kept in touch regularly by phone and text messages.

7 The complainant could not return to Bangladesh with the accused on 12 October 2005 because her divorce proceedings were still ongoing. In particular, she and her husband had a counselling session on 14 November 2005 relating to the divorce proceedings that she had to attend. Before the accused left for Bangladesh, he purchased a return air ticket for the complainant so that she could join him there. The complainant had also applied for the requisite Bangladeshi visa so that she could travel to the country. The departure date, as stated on the air ticket, was 18 November 2005, and the return date was 25 November 2005.

8 In the event, the complainant never made the trip. The complainant testified that she had told her mother of her intention to travel to Bangladesh to meet a friend. Her mother did not like the idea and threatened to prevent the complainant from ever seeing her children again if she went. The complainant told the accused about this, and he tried in vain to make her resolute about going to Bangladesh.

9 About the same time, on 14 November 2005, the complainant attended the counselling session with her husband. During this session, the complainant’s husband pleaded with her to give him a second chance. She agreed to do so, and resolved from that point on to put an end to her relationship with the accused. The complainant made a long-distance call to the accused to tell him of her decision. According to her, the accused was angry and told her that she should not change her mind about marrying him.

10 Despite the complainant’s resolution to end the relationship with the accused, she still helped him to get a visa to return to Singapore. This was to fulfil the promise that she had made to him before he left for Bangladesh. Consequently, the accused returned to Singapore on 12 December 2005. The complainant arrived at Changi Airport at 6.00am to pick him up, and then dropped him off at the hotel at which they used to have sexual intercourse, and after that, she went to work, arriving at Giant at 8.10am. During the period from 12 December 2005 to 23 December 2005, the accused visited the work place of the complainant almost every day, mostly during her lunch time. The complainant testified that she was not happy that he did so because she did not want her colleagues to know that he was visiting her. The accused also followed the complainant home after work. According to the complainant, the accused was pestering her because he wanted her to cancel the Bangladeshi visa that she had applied for. The accused was of the view that he would be penalised if the complainant did not do so. However, the complainant did not have her passport with her because her mother had hidden it. The complainant also testified that the accused wanted her to sign some documents that would enable him to get employment in Singapore.

11 The complainant confirmed that on the occasions that the accused visited her at Giant during her lunch time, they would go to a nearby block of flats to chat. They hugged and kissed during these sessions, but did not have sex. However, the complainant testified that there was one occasion where they went to a park near Bedok bus interchange during which she masturbated the accused. The complainant stated that she had only done so because the accused had insisted. The complainant also testified that the accused had at some point shown her a large sum of money, which he obtained by selling off his plantation in Bangladesh, but she maintained that she did not know what the money was for and had assumed that it was for the accused to support himself while he looked for a job.

12 The complainant also testified that on 14 or 15 December 2005, she went with the accused to a neighbourhood police post to ask whether a police report needed to be made in order for a new passport to be made. The police officer informed them that a police report did not need to be made, and instead gave the complainant an application form to fill in. The complainant then submitted the form to the Immigration Checkpoint Authority (“ICA”). A few days after the form was submitted (the accused testified that this incident occurred on 20 December 2005, but the complainant could not remember the exact date), the complainant and the accused went to the ICA in order to collect the complainant’s new passport. While there, the complainant was informed that she needed to pay a sum of $100 because she had not made a police report. She had only expected to pay $50 for the new passport. As a result, the complainant did not collect her new passport, instead, the accused quarrelled with her over the incident, which ended with a scuffle at the Lavender MRT station.

13 The complainant testified that the accused had contacted her on 22 December 2005 to ask her to go to the flat to meet the accused’s prospective employer in order to sign some forms. The complainant said that she would try to make the trip during her lunch hour, but in the end, she was unable to do so on that day and went the next day instead.

The accused’s version of events that occurred before the day of the alleged incidents

14 The accused’s version of events leading up to 23 December 2005 differed from the complainant’s account in some respects. The most essential difference in their respective testimonies was that while the complainant stated that she had ended their relationship while the accused still in Bangladesh and that he had returned to Singapore on 6 December 2005 only to find work, the accused testified that their relationship was still ongoing when he returned to Singapore. According to the accused, he had returned to Singapore on 6 December 2005 because the complainant had asked him to come back to marry her. She also asked him to bring money for the marriage, upon which he sold his cultivatable land in Bangladesh in exchange for $5000. The complainant picked him up from the airport on 6 December 2005 and then went with him to their regular hotel. He and...