Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Idris Bin Basiran
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] SGDC 194 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 17 September 2007 |
| Year | 2007 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | DPPs Jeyendra Jeyapal & Vinesh Winodan / APP Simran Toor |
| Defendant Counsel | K Jayajumar Naidu (William Chai Sunforester LLC) |
| Citation | [2007] SGDC 194 |
| 10 July 2007 |
Judgment reserved. |
District Judge Kow Keng Siong:
The salient issues
1 How does a court assess witness credibility? Is a custodial sentence inevitable when a police officer molests his domestic maid through physical contact which does not involve her private parts? These are some of the interesting issues considered in the present case.
The charges
2 The Accused, Mr Muhammad Idris bin Basiran, had claimed trial to 3 charges under section 354 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code. According to these charges, he was purported to have molested his Indonesian maid, Ms Indra Puspitasari, by –
a. Kissing her left cheek – This act allegedly took place in early February 2006 at or about 1 am inside a bedroom occupied by the Accused’s children and the maid: DAC 44673/2006 (1st charge);
b. Stroking her arms and uttering ‘I cannot stand it anymore’ – This act allegedly occurred in mid February 2006 at or about 5 am at the dining table: DAC 44674/2006 (2nd charge); and
c. Grabbing Indra’s shoulders and trying to kiss her face – This act allegedly took place in late February 2006 inside the bedroom occupied by the Accused’s children and the maid: DAC 44675/2006 (3rd charge).
3 The Accused denied having molested his maid.
4 Another charge (DAC 44676/2006 – 4th charge), where the Accused was alleged to have squeezed Indra’s left buttock in April 2006 at his residence, was stood down pending the outcome of the trial.
The appeals
5 At the end of the hearing, I convicted the Accused and sentenced him to a total fine of $11,000.
6 Arising from that decision, appeals have been filed –
a. against conviction, and
b. against sentence (by both parties).
Undisputed background facts
7 At all material times, the Accused was a police officer. His household consisted of his wife (Nurlina M. Abdullah), his 3 young children (Mohd Indra / 7 yrs, Mohd Iskandar / 8 yrs, and Mohd Imran / 9 yrs)[note: 1]and himself.
8 Indra began working as the Accused’s domestic maid sometime in late December 2005 / early January 2006. From 18 to 27 January 2006, she followed the Accused and his family on a holiday trip to the Philippines.[note: 2]
The Prosecution’s case
First instance of sexual harassment
9 Indra testified that shortly returning from the Philippines, there was an occasion where the Accused told his 8-year-old son (Mohd Iskandar) in the living room that ‘Kaka (Indra) wants to make baby with Daddy at night’. Indra was shocked, ashamed and angered by this lewd remark. When she told the Accused to refrain from making such remarks, the latter merely smiled.
10 Indra later learnt from the Accused that –
(a) Mohd Iskandar had related this incident to his mother, and
(b) he and his wife had a quarrel over it.[note: 3]
First charge
11 According to Indra, there was another incident a few days later.[note: 4]It happened sometime in early February 2006 at about 1 am. While sleeping soundly on a mattress laid out on her bedroom floor,[note: 5]Indra suddenly sensed that someone had entered and kissed her left cheek briefly. She could not see who it was as the bedroom was shrouded in darkness.
12 Indra did not react to the kiss but continued sleeping instead. This was because she was very tired at the material time and had assumed that –
a. the Accused had brought the youngest child (Mohd Indra) into the bedroom after watching late night TV, and
b. 1 of the children had kissed her.
According to Indra, it was not unusual for the children to kiss her before going to sleep.[note: 6]The Accused’s wife was not at home as she was then working the graveyard shift at a factory.[note: 7]
13 The next morning, the Accused told Indra that he had kissed her and touched her from head to toe the previous night while she was sleeping soundly. When asked to confirm his claim, the Accused merely smiled. It was only then that Indra realized that the person whom she had felt kissing her the previous night was the Accused. She was angry and ashamed at the revelation and wanted to cry.[note: 8]
14 After this incident, Indra only spoke to the Accused where necessary.[note: 9]
Second charge
15 Indra testified that about 5 days after the kissing incident, the Accused molested her again. This happened sometime in mid February at about 5 am. While Indra was sitting at the dining table waiting for Mohd Imran to finish his breakfast before going to school, the Accused came from his bedroom and stood behind her. He then grabbed her upper arms before stroking them, saying softly, ‘I cannot stand it anymore’. At the material time, Indra was wearing a sleeveless batik dress.[note: 10]
16 Indra did not understand then what the Accused was implying. She had just woken up and did not think that there was about anything unusual or lewd about his remarks. Indra thought that the Accused was joking.
17 She was however angry and shocked by his touch. She pushed away the Accused’s hands and asked, ‘What Sir?’ The Accused was quiet, and returned to his bedroom soon thereafter. At the material time, the Accused’s wife and 2 other children were also at home.[note: 11]
18 At about 2 pm that same day, Indra had to phone the Accused to ask whether she needed to send bread to the first child (Mohd Imran) at school. During that phone conversation, the Accused told Indra softly that seeing her in the sleeveless batik dress that morning made his private parts ‘painful’. Despite her trying to change the topic by reverting him back to the bread issue, he continued to speak to her lewdly. Shocked and angry, Indra asked him why did he speak to her in that manner. When the Accused repeated his lewd remarks, she put down the phone.[note: 12]
Third charge
19 The 3rd alleged molest incident took place sometime in late February 2006 at or about 7 pm when Indra was in her bedroom. At that time, the Accused’s wife was at work and his 3 children were in the living room watching television.[note: 13]
20 Indra was then taking a rest on the children’s double-decker bed when the Accused entered the bedroom. He asked her why the room’s windows were opened. When Indra replied that it was hot, the Accused told her that they should be closed; otherwise passer-bys at the corridor could look into the room.[note: 14]
21 After switching on the fan, the Accused approached Indra, held her shoulders tightly, and attempted to kiss her. He persisted despite Indra asking him to stop. She did not raise her voice because she was on the verge of tears.
22 When Indra retreated backwards into the bed, the Accused accidentally hit his forehead on the upper deck bed-frame. It was at this moment that he released his grip on Indra, who took this opportunity to escape into the living room.[note: 15]
23 When Indra told the 3 children in the living room that their father had ‘bothered’ / ‘disturbed’ her, they merely laughed. Worried that the Accused might come back to her, Indra armed herself with a back-scratcher. He however did not. Instead, the Accused went into his bedroom after washing his face. According to Indra, he behaved normally for the rest of the day.[note: 16]
The escape
24 On 14 April 2006 (Good Friday), Indra ran away from the Accused’s apartment. She later lodged a police report (P7) on the same day.
Assessment of the evidence
Approach to Indra’s evidence
25 This case involved a contest of credibility – Indra’s against the Accused’s. Direct evidence about the molest stemmed essentially from Indra’s allegations.[note: 17]I appreciated that in such a situation, I must carefully sift through her evidence. This is because whenever a court has to either acquit or convict an accused based on a single allegation by a witness, there is a real risk of miscarriage of justice: Tang Kin Seng v PP
26 As this case involved a sexual offence, I was also mindful of the following observations made in Tang Kin Seng v PP
44. … the right approach is to analyse the evidence for the prosecution and for the Defence, and decide whether the complainant's evidence is so reliable that a conviction based solely on it is not unsafe. If it is not, it is necessary to identify which aspect of it is not so convincing and for which supporting evidence is required or desired. In assessing the supporting evidence, the question then is whether this supporting evidence makes up for the weakness in the complainant's evidence. All these would, of course, have to be done in the light of all the circumstances of each case and all the evidence, including the Defence evidence, as well as accumulated knowledge of human behaviour and common sense.
27 The above observations are in effect a reformulation of what had been said previously that where the sole evidence against an accused is that of the complainant of a sexual offence, a court should not convict unless the complainant's evidence is `unusually convincing' or independently corroborated: Tang Kin Seng v PP
28 In determining whether a complainant’s evidence is ‘unusually convincing’ or compelling, courts generally take into account the following non-exhaustive factors.
29 Firstly, a court will take into account whether the complainant’s account bears a ring of truth. This consideration includes factors...
To continue reading
Request your trial