Public Prosecutor v Ng Chuon Beng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: P Siva Shanmugam
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 157
• Citation: [2004] SGDC 157
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chong Kah Wei (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Charan Singh (Charan and Co)
• Published date: 06 July 2004

30 June 2004

District Judge Siva Shanmugam:

1 The accused claimed trial to a charge of carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or lawful purpose, an offence punishable under Section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Chapter 65.

The Charge

2 The charge against the accused reads as follows :

DAC 50064/2003

“You, are charged that you on the 6^th day of August 2003, at or about 12.50am, at the vicinity of Blk 90 Whampoa Drive, Singapore, which is a public place, did carry an offensive weapon. To wit, a 35 cm bread knife, without lawful authority or lawful purpose, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Chapter 65”.

3 At the end of the trial the accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 6 months and 6 strokes of the cane. He is presently appealing against both his conviction and the sentence passed.

Case For The Prosecution

PW1 Cpl Yusup Balia

4 PW1 Cpl Yusup told the Court that 9 August 2003 he was performing plainclothes night shift duty from 8 pm till 8 am the following day together with PW2 Cpl Deeno Abdul Barak. At about 0055hrs whilst at the market of Block 90 Whampoa Drive hawker centre he heard a noise coming from the other end of the hawker centre. He turned in that direction and noticed a few men fighting and punching each other. Together with his partner he proceeded to the scene. Some 5 metres away from the scene and he saw 2 persons pointing to each other and one of them holding a long knife up in the air with his arm raised. He could not recall if the other man was holding anything. Cpl Yusup then called his team leader PW3 ASP Selvakumar for assistance.

5 After his team leader arrived Cpl Yusup together with PW7 SC Cpl Norhaizat conducted a search of the scene. At the premises of Yu Yi coffee stall they recovered a bread knife placed in between a tin and a metal cabinet. Cpl Yusup identified photograph P13 as the location where the knife was discovered. He positively identified the knife P17 as the one that he had seen being used by a man in the altercation earlier. As they continued with their search SC Cpl Norhaizat recovered a chopper from the next stall seen in the photograph P11 namely Yin Kee Duck Rice stall. The chopper P18 had been placed inside a red bucket and covered with a lid. A photograph of the bucket was captured in P15. PW2 Cpl Deeno had earlier seen a man using this chopper during the fight and was called to identify it. Cpl Deeno confirmed that he had seen the same chopper being used earlier.

6 Cpl Yusup was unable to identify the 2 men who were involved in the fight he had witnessed. He added that he did not stop the fight as he was in plain clothes and in fear of possibly being assaulted as well.

PW2 Cpl Deeno Abdul Barak

7 PW2 Cpl Deeno Abdul Barak told the Court that 9 August 2003 he was performing plainclothes night shift duty from 8 pm till 8 am the following day together with PW1 Cpl Yusup.

8 At about 0055 hrs, whilst he was patrolling the vicinity of Block 90 Whampoa Drive he heard a lady scream some 50 metres away. Cpl Deeno then observed a group of Chinese men pushing and shoving each other near Yu Yi coffee shop. As he walked towards the group he noticed a Chinese man with a moustache holding a chopper in his right hand. Cpl Deeno saw this man lifting the chopper and lunging at another Chinese man. He noted the man holding the chopper was wearing a polo T-shirt with a band of navy blue stripe across the T-shirt. He was unable to identify the man being attacked by the one who wielded the chopper. A group of Chinese men were restraining the 2 Chinese men who were going at each other. This confrontation went on for some 4 to 5 minutes. He then observed a tall and thin Chinese man with shoulder length hair restraining the chopper wielding man and removing the chopper from his possession. Cpl Deeno identified PW 4 Tan Chee Keong as the one who was using the chopper and DW2 Loo Kim Heng as the one who had restrained Tan. Cpl Deeno then continued observation and called for back up. He did not attempt to stop the fight as there were only the 2 of them present. Subsequently PW3 ASP Selvakumar arrived at the scene and Cpl Deeno briefed him. Later SC Cpl Norhaizat showed Cpl Deeno a chopper P18 which Cpl Deeno positively identified as the one used in the fight.

PW3 ASP Selvakumar

9 PW3 ASP Selvakumar told the Court that at about 0055 hours on 6 August 2003, Cpl Yusup had called him to inform him of a fight at Block 90 Whampoa Drive. ASP Selva reported the incident to his headquarters and proceeded to the scene with Cpl Hendie. He arrived at the scene at about 0100 hours and was briefed by Cpl Yusup and Cpl Deeno. He was informed that 2 men were involved in a fight. Cpl Deeno identified Tan and the accused Ng as the persons involved.

10 ASP Selva directed Cpl Yusup, Cpl Deeno and SC Cpl Norhaizat to conduct a search of the vicinity. He also directed Ssgt Melvin Phua Kok Leong to interview a Chinese lady who was then sitting at the coffeeshop. ASP Selva was of the view that the lady, later established to be Teh Ser Hui might have witnessed the incident.

11 ASP Selva was subsequently informed by Cpl Yusup that a long knife was recovered from a coffee stall and a chopper in the stall next to it. The weapons were seized as exhibits. ASP Selva added that Teh Ser Hui subsequently identified the accused and Tan as the persons who were holding the weapons and involved in a fight.

PW4 Tan Chee Keong

12 PW4 Tan Chee Keong told the Court that he had known the accused since 1998 and they were both friends. He stated that sometime in August 2003 at Whampoa market, there was a quarrel between him and the accused arising out of a misunderstanding. Tan claimed that neither he nor the accused were carrying weapons during this quarrel and that the quarrel was a family affair.

13 The Learned DPP then applied to impeach Tan’s credit with a previous inconsistent statement and to have the contents of the previous statement admitted under s 157(c) and s 147(3) of the Evidence Act respectively. Tan had furnished this statement after he had pleaded guilty to an offence under s 22(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act for his role in the incident. Tan conceded that he had voluntarily given this statement which was admitted and marked as P21. In P21, Tan had stated that he and the accused had a quarrel at the material time and that the accused had picked up a knife in the course of their argument. Out of fear for his own safety Tan too had armed himself with a chopper and the two of them had to be restrained by on-lookers. Tan conceded that the facts disclosed in his statement was accurate. Tan identified P18 as the chopper that was used by him and P17 as the knife used by the accused.

14 Under cross-examination Tan agreed with Learned Defence Counsel’s suggestion that the accused was merely holding the knife in the course of work, namely to assist the cutting of bread.

PW5 Teh Ser Hui

15 PW5 Teh Ser Hui told the Court that she was a coffee stall assistant at Yu Yi stall located at Whampoa Drive. Her mother owned the stall. The stall serves drinks, alcoholic drinks as well as eggs and bread and operates from 5 am till 2 to 3 am the following day. Teh told the Court that the accused was her boyfriend. She had been with the accused for 9 years. They were still in the same relationship at the time her of testimony. She told the Court that the accused helps out at the stall everyday. The accused would help out in serving drinks, cutting bread and boiling eggs. The cutting of the bread would usually be done inside the stall. The bread knife would usually be kept in a plastic basket on a table within the stall.

16 Teh told the Court that she was working on the night of 5 August 2003 at the stall. She denied having a quarrel with the accused that evening. She added that though the accused and Tan were having an argument she did not know what it was about as she was busy working.

17 She claimed that she did not see either Tan or the accused holding any weapons at the material time.

18 The Learned DPP applied then applied to impeach Teh’s credit with two previous inconsistent statements and to have the contents of the previous statements admitted under s 157(c) and s 147(3) of the Evidence Act respectively. Teh’s first statement was recorded on the morning of the incident itself. Teh admitted that she had given a statement to PW6 Ssgt Melvin Phua at the material time – P22.

19 In P22, contrary to her evidence in Court, Teh had stated that she did have dispute with the accused on the morning of 6 August 2003 over their relationship. Tan, who was her god brother, then engaged in a dispute with the accused over the same matter. She added that Tan armed himself with a long bread knife and the accused had a chopper in his hands in the course of their quarrel. The regulars at the coffee stall then managed to restrain the two of them and pulled them apart. Teh also went on to identify the two weapons which were used in the course of the dispute. When asked to explain the inconsistencies Teh denied the contents of the statement. She stated that the recorder had sought her co-operation with the threat of revoking the license of her mother’s stall. She merely answered yes to the questions and facts put forth to her by the recorder. She added that she was confused when she gave the statement as the police had arrested her elder brother Teh Choon Sin.

PW6 Ssgt Phua Kok Leong, Melvin

20 PW6 Ssgt Phua Kok Leong, Melvin told the Court that on 6 August 2003 he was despatched to the scene to attend to a case of fighting at Whampoa market together with his partner SC Cpl Norhaizat. When he arrived at the scene he was directed to interview PW5 Teh Ser Hui. He then led Teh to a neighbouring block, Block 91 and proceeded to record a statement...