Public Prosecutor v Muralitharan s/o Aragasamy
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | P Siva Shanmugam |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] SGDC 12 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Published date | 13 February 2006 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Kalaithasan (Assistant Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Surian Sibamparam and Harvindarjit Singh Bath (Surian and Partners) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Offences,Public tranquillity,Rioting,Rioting armed with deadly weapon,Accused, together with eight other male persons, alleged to have attacked three victims while armed with a knife,Sentence,Sections 146, 148 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Alibi,Accused claiming to have been involved in traffic accident with female friend at time of incident, and afterwards having spent the night at condominium apartment of other friends,Female friend, friend living at apartment, and condominium security guard testifying as Defence witnesses,Whether interested witnesses,Weight to be given to Defence witnesses' testimony,Identification,Victim claiming to identify accused as person involved in attack holding the knife as he had met accused prior to incident,Whether identification evidence of good quality,Whether quality of identification evidence diminished by fact that investigating officers had only shown victim one photograph of an Indian suspect, that of the accused,Evidence,Witnesses,Examination,Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing,Victim giving statements to police stating that he had seen one Ayapa assaulting another victim with knife, and identifying accused as Ayapa,Victim subsequently retracting statements in court and stating that he had meant to say that assailant looked like Ayapa,Victim's credit impeached,Whether victim's previous statements should be accepted as substantive evidence over his oral testimony,Section 147 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) |
| Citation | [2006] SGDC 12 |
27 January 2006
District Judge Siva Shanmugam:
The charge and appeal
1 This Grounds of Decision arises from an appeal against conviction.
2 The Accused, Muralitharan S/O Aragasamy (“Murali”) was the second Accused in a joint trial for an offence under s 148 of the Penal Code. The amended charge, against him reads a s follows :-
You,
Muralitharan S/O Aragasamy, Male/27 years
NRIC No. S-7733182D
are charged that you on 13th day of May 2005, at or about 3.30am, infront of Blk 514, along Jurong West Street 51, Singapore, together with 8 other male persons, were members of an unlawful assembly, whose common object was to cause hurt to Sujandran S/O Murugiayah, M/22 yrs, Vijayakanthan Vijayakeethan, M/17 yrs and Mukesh, M/28 yrs and in prosecution of the said common object of the assembly, one or more of you had used violence by attacking them whilst armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife, and you have thereby by virtue of Section 146 of the Penal Code committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the aforesaid Code, Chapter 224.
3 The first Accused DW1 Chew Yong Heng faced a similar charge. At the end of the trial Chew was acquitted and discharged. The second Accused Murali was found guilty and convicted. He now appeals against this conviction.
Undisputed Facts
4 The incidence of rioting on 13 May 2005 at about 3.30 am along Block 514 Jurong West Street 51, the use of a knife in the attack and the injuries suffered by the victim were not disputed.
Prosecution’s Case
Evidence of PW1 Sujandran S/O Murugiayah
5 PW1 Sujandran (“Sujan”) told the Court that at about 11 pm, on 12 May 2005, he had met with his friends Keethan, Mukesh and Shalini for dinner at a coffee shop at Jurong West Street 51. As they were walking after dinner, on 13 May 2005, at about 3.30 am, Sujan and his friends were set upon by a group of men. The attack on them lasted some 3 to 5 minutes. Sujan told the Court that the scene though lighted was dark and dim. Sujan witnessed a Chinese man attacking Mukesh. Sujan ran from the scene but slipped and fell. He was kicked in the eye and slashed. He covered his face to protect himself. He estimated that he was assaulted by 2 or 3 men who were presumably Chinese as they were scolding him in Chinese. He was slashed in his left arm and the back of his left leg. He then saw Keethan running towards him. Keethan brought him to a nearby block. Sujan passed out. When Sujan next regained consciousness, he was in hospital. Sujan was unable to identify any of the assailants.
Evidence of PW2 Selamat Bin Elias
6 PW2 Selamat Bin Elias (“Selemat”) was an independent witness. He is a taxi driver who happened to be at the scene at the material time. Selamat told the Court that on 13 May 2005 he was driving his taxi along Jurong West Street 52 when he saw four to five Indian persons including one female, walking in the direction of his taxi. He slowed down to see if they would alight his cab. As he passed the group of 4 to 5 persons, he kept observation on them through his rear view mirror. He then witnessed a group of 5 to 6 persons attack the group of 4 who had just walked past him. Shortly after he saw a vehicle bearing license plates SDQ or SBQ 3967 arriving at the scene. The said vehicle left after picking up some persons. Selamat informed that the assailants comprised of several Chinese men and one Indian man. He added that he was unable to identify any of the assailants. Selamat wrote down the license registration number of the vehicle involved and subsequently handed it over to the Police.
Evidence of PW3 Eri Amsari
7 PW3 Corporal Eri Amsari was the first officer to attend to the scene. He informed that no weapons were recovered from the scene.
Evidence of PW4 SSSGT Mohd Jalil Bin Ahmad
8 PW4 SSSGT Mohd Jalil Bin Ahmad told the Court that whilst he was attending to the scene Selamat had approached him and informed that he spotted a car bearing registration number SDQ or SBQ 3967 during the incident earlier. SSSGT Mohd Jalil subsequently informed the Investigation Officer of Selamat’s observations.
Evidence of PW5 Vijayakanthan Vijayakeethan
9 PW5 Vijayakanthan Vijayakeethan (‘Keethan”) told the Court that he and three of his friends, namely Sujan, Mukesh and a female Shalini were having dinner at the coffee shop of Block 504 at Jurong West. After dinner all four for them headed in the direction of Lakeside MRT station. As they were walking a group of 5 persons started to attack them. Keethan and Sujan started running in different directions. Keethan ran across the road and then witnessed a dark skinned person using a knife and slashing Sujan who had fallen down. Keethan claimed that he was unable identify the person who had attacked Sujan. Subsequently Keethan’s friends re-grouped and Mukesh called for an ambulance. Keethan conceded that he had given a statement to the Police P 12 stating that he had seen one Ayapa assault Sujan using a knife and that this Ayapa was known to him prior to the incident. In a further statement P13 he had identified Murali as the assailant he had earlier referred to as Ayapa. However in Court he retracted his statements P12 and P13 stating that what he meant to say was that the assailant looked like Ayapa. Leave was then granted under s157 of the Evidence Act for the Learned APP to cross-examine the witness on inconsistencies between his evidence in Court and his earlier voluntary statements to the Police.
10 Keethan admitted to having made the statement P12 and reading it before signing the statement. He also conceded that at the time of making P12 the events in question were fresh on his mind. In P12 Keethan had stated that he recognized the identity of the person who had assaulted Sujan. In P13 Keethan had positively identified the Accused Murali as the one who had assaulted Sujan. In the absence of a credible explanation from Keethan as to the discrepancies between his statements and his evidence in Court, the Learned APP invited the Court to accept his previous statements as substantive evidence over his oral testimony in Court.
Evidence of PW6 Danny Low
11 The FIR – P14, and a medical report on the victim by Professor V.P. Kumar – P15, was tendered through PW6 Sgt Danny Low.
Evidence of PW7 Tee Wei Xian
12 PW7 Sgt Tee Wei Xian told the Court that he was dispatched to the scene on 13 May 2005. At the scene, he interviewed and recorded a statement from Keethan – P12, in the English language. Keethan had informed that he was able to understand and read English and did not require any interpreters. Sgt Tee stated that the contents of the statement were derived from Keethan. He added that Keethan had informed that he recognized the male Indian assailant who was known to him as Ayapa. Sgt Tee affirmed that the statement was accurately recorded and contained what Keethan had told him. Following the recording Sgt Tee read Keethan’s statement back to him in English. Keethan was invited to make changes or amendments but he declined to do so. Sgt Tee had also asked Keethan to read his statement himself which Keethan did. Keethan then signed this statement.
Evidence of PW8 Sheikh E’dah
13 PW8 Station Inspector Sheikh E’dah told the Court that he conducted a photograph identification with Keethan on 14 May 2005. Following this he recorded a statement from Keethan - P13. He affirmed that Keethan was able to converse in English and that P 13 contained what Keethan had told him. Prior to recording P13 Keethan was shown his earlier statement P12. P12 was also read to Keethan. 6 photographs were shown to Keethan and Keethan positively identified the Accused Murali whom he knew as Ayapa, as one of the assailants. After P13 was recorded, it was read back to Keethan. Keethan was invited to make amendments, corrections or additions to P13 but he declined to do so. Keethan signed his statement thereafter.
Evidence of PW9 Chay Mun Wai
14 PW9 Chay Mun Wai, the Investigating Officer of the case produced the two statements recorded from the first Accused Chew – P16 and P17. IO Chay affirmed that photograph 6 of P13 was that of the Accused Murali. IO Chay also told the Court that he traced the car bearing registration number SDQ 3967D to the first accused Chew.
Close of Prosecution’s Case
15 At the close of the prosecution’s case, applying the principles enunciated in Haw Tua Tau v PP
16 Accordingly, the Court called upon the Accused persons to enter their defence. The first Accused Chew elected to give evidence. The second Accused Murali initially indicated that he wished to give evidence but subsequently elected remain silent. The Accused Murali proceeded to call 3 other witnesses in his defence.
Defence’s Case
Evidence of the Accused (B1) DW1 Chew Yong Heng
17 DW1 Chew Yong Heng told the Court that on 13 May 2005, he had driven his friend one Lao Fu Zi to the scene pursuant to the latter’s request. He drove his company car bearing registration number SDQ 3967D. Lao alighted from his car, at Jurong West Street 51 at about 3 am to 3 am plus. Lao told Chew to wait for him. Whilst Chew was waiting in the vicinity he heard a group of Indians fighting or quarrelling. He became frightened and drove off. As he drove along the main road he saw Lao. He picked up, Lao who was then panting and drove off the scene. Chew dropped Lao at Bukit Gombak MRT station and drove home. Chew could not tell how many persons were involved in the fighting incident nor identify any of them. He did however notice that there was an Indian man lying on the ground close to where he had seen Lao on the main road.
Evidence of DW2 Ramanan S/O Yeamalley Nair
18 DW2 Ramanan S/O Yeamalley Nair was a security guard at Rosewood Condominium located Rosewood Drive, at the material time. He had started work at 8 pm on 12 May 2005. He claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial