Public Prosecutor v PI
| Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] SGDC 114 |
| Citation | [2006] SGDC 114 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Janet Wang (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Jeffrey Beh (Lee Bon Leong & Co) |
| Published date | 23 April 2007 |
| 2 June 2006 |
Judgment reserved. |
District Judge Kow Keng Siong:
Introduction
The appeal
1. This Judgement arose from an appeal against conviction and sentence.
The charges
2. The Accused, PI, claimed trial to 7 charges. They were –
a. DAC 46604 & 47850 of 2005: 2 charges under section 354 of the Penal Code allegedly involving 2 victims, and
b. MAC 5487 – 91 of 2005: 5 charges under section 294(a) of the Penal Code allegedly involving 3 victims.
Trial issue – Mistaken identification
3. During the trial, it was the Prosecution’s case that the Accused had, on various occasions, molested and indecently exposed himself to 3 Indonesian domestic maids who were staying near his residence in Hougang. One of these maids was Ms Lia Kurniawati – the relevant charges being DAC 46604 of 2005 (section 354) and MAC 5487 – 88 of 2005 (section 294(a)).
4. The Accused did not challenge the fact that the 3 maids had been molested and subjected to indecent exposure. He however vigorously denied being the culprit, claiming that it was a case of mistaken identity.[note: 1]With regards to Lia, the Defence further contended that she had lied that a cap seized from the Accused (P19) was the same cap worn by the culprit during the incidents, thereby falsely implicating him.[note: 2]
The decision and sentence
5. At the end of the trial, I –
a. accepted Lia’s evidence and convicted the Accused on the charges in DAC 46604 of 2005 (section 354 offence) and MAC 5487 – 88 of 2005 (section 294(a) offences); and
b. acquitted him on the remaining charges involving the other 2 alleged victims due to poor identification evidence.
6. After his conviction, the Accused pleaded guilty to 2 other stood down charges, namely –
a. MAC 5683 of 2005 (possession of 5 un-certificated films, an offence under section 21(1)(a) of the Films Act), and
b. MAC 5684 of 2005 (possession of 16 obscene films, an offence under section 30(2)(a) of the Films Act).
7. For all his offences, I sentenced the Accused as follows:
| DAC 46604/2005 (molest) & |
6 years’ corrective training |
|
MAC 5683/2005 |
$500 fine, in default 2 days’ imprisonment |
|
MAC 5684/2005 |
$16,000 fine, in default 8 weeks’ imprisonment |
8. The Accused had appealed against his conviction and sentence of corrective training for the charges in DAC 46604/2005 and MAC 5487 – 88/2005. I shall now set out the grounds for my decision.
Prosecution’s case relating to DAC 46604/2005 & MAC 5487 – 88/2005
9. At all material times, Lia Kurniawati was a domestic maid living at Block 698D, Hougang Street 52, [xxx].
The 1st incident
10. On 23 January 2005 at about 6 am, Lia had gone to a nearby market situated between Blocks 682 and 683 to buy some vegetables. By about 6.30 am, she had returned back to her block, and entered the lift. As the lift door was about to shut, a man entered and pressed the lift button for the 4th level. At the material time, there were only 2 of them in the lift.[note: 3] The lift began to ascend.
11. Lia did not really pay attention to the man until he pulled down his pants and began fondling his private parts (MAC 5487/2005 – charge P2A). At this juncture, she saw that the man (who was standing just half-a-metre away from her) was a tall Chinese in his 30s. He wore a cap, a pair of black short pants, and a polo shirt with red stripes. The man was not fat. Lia also had a good look at his face and saw that he wore clear glasses and had a ‘slight moustache’.[note: 4]
12. During the trial, Lia identified the Accused as the man in question. She also testified that while the Accused was exposing himself in the lift, he told her in English,
You try – it is very good, very good. You want to try? It is very nice, very nice.
Frightened and embarrassed by the Accused’s conduct, Lia tried to look away.[note: 5]
13. Perhaps emboldened by Lia’s silence and in-action, the Accused touched the left side of her left breast with his right hand (DAC 46604/2005 – charge P1A), before continuing to fondle his private parts, saying, ‘You try, it is very good, very good.’[note: 6]
14. By then, Lia was very angry. She looked at the Accused’s face to avoid seeing his private parts, and also to ensure that she would not forget his features.[note: 7]
15. When the lift door opened at the 4th level, the Accused stepped out to check if there was anyone outside. There was none. When he attempted to enter the lift again, Lia shouted. Frightened, the Accused ran up the stairs. Lia immediately returned home and complained to her employer, Mdm Tay Sai Ngen, about the incident. Their subsequent attempt to locate the Accused proved to be futile.[note: 8]
The 2nd incident
16. After the lift incident on 23 January 2005, Lia stopped going to the market by herself. By September 2005 however, she felt sufficiently assured that it was safe for her to continue with her marketing.[note: 9]
17. On 25 September 2005, Lia went marketing in the morning. At about 6.30 am plus, she began making her way home. When Lia was outside a clinic at Block 683 (at an area below the blue cross in photo P15C), she saw a man standing 2 – 3 m ahead and he was facing her. Upon seeing his face, Lia froze in her steps out of fear. Although it was dark, there was sufficient lighting from the lamps above the passageway for Lia to make out the man’s face clearly. She recognized that it was the Accused – even though he was not wearing any glasses at the material time. The Accused had the same attire and cap as when she first saw him on 23 January 2005.[note: 10]
18. After pacing about for a while, the Accused proceeded towards Lia and exposed himself (MAC 5488/2005 – charge P3A). Lia walked past the Accused so that she could return to her block.[note: 11]
19. After walking past the Accused, Lia met a lady and confided to her what had happened. Acting on the lady’s caution to be careful, she decided to run towards her block (698D) through Block 682. At this juncture, Lia noticed that the Accused was already on a big black motorcycle observing her. He was still wearing his cap.[note: 12]
20. Upon reaching her block, Lia noticed that the Accused was waiting for her nearby, ramming his motorcycle. Lia hid herself to avoid being seen by him. At the same time, she tried to look out for the Accused’s motorcycle registration plate number but was unsuccessful. The Accused eventually rode off when he could not see Lia.[note: 13]
21. Lia then quickly returned home and revealed to Mdm Tay what had transpired. Mdm Tay went downstairs to locate the Accused but could not find him.[note: 14]
The photo identification
22. On 15 October 2005, Lia and Mdm Tay were called to Ang Mo Kio Police Division to assist in identifying the culprit. Upon being shown a set of 9 photos (P16), Lia instantly – and without any prompting – picked out the Accused (photo number 8) as the culprit.[note: 15]
Motif on the cap
23. In cross-examination, Lia revealed an important piece of identification evidence.
24. During the January 2005 incident, Lia recalled seeing a white motif – in the form of a circle with a vertical line through it – on the forehead portion of the Accused’s cap. She saw this motif when the Accused bent his head while fondling his private parts in the lift. When requested to draw the motif in court, Lia interestingly drew a picture (P20A) which resembled the ‘OP’ logo on the Accused’s cap (P19). This cap had earlier been seized by the Police.[note: 16]
25. According to Lia –
a. she did not previously inform anyone about the motif (including the Police and DPP Wang), and was describing it for the 1st time on the occasion she drew P20A in court;
b. she had not been shown P19 at any point in time – in fact, no one showed her any cap during the course of the investigations.[note: 17]
26. With regards to the September 2005 incident, Lia testified that she did not notice whether the Accused’s cap had the same motif, as she was then observing his face.[note: 18]
The defence
Accused’s evidence
27. At all material times, the Accused resided at a 3rd floor HDB unit at Block 683 Hougang Avenue 8. He had been living there for about 17 years.[note: 19]
28. The Accused testified that between September 2004 to 15 September 2005, he had worked as a mover. It was a 7 days-a-week job, with occasional (irregular) day-offs. The Accused would normally –
(a) wake up at about 5.30 am,
(b) have coffee at a nearby coffeeshop (located at Block 681) at between 5.45 am – 5.50 am,
(c) leave for work on his motorcycle at about 6.05 am – 6.20 am,
(d) arrive at his workplace between 6.45 am to 7 plus, and
(e) start work at 8 am.[note: 20]
29. The Accused continued with this same routine[note: 21] even after he began working at Tan Chong Motors from 15 September 2005.[note: 22] At Tan Chong Motors, the Accused did not work on Sundays.[note: 23]
30. On the days when the Accused did not need to work, he would –
(a) still wake up at about 5.30 am and then have coffee at the coffeeshop,
(b) return home at about 6.15 am – 6.30 am,
(c) return to the coffeeshop again at about 7 am plus with a neighbour.[note: 24]
31. The Accused denied having committed the offences alleged by Lia, and was sure that he was at the coffeeshop on those 2 mornings in January and September 2005. This was because it had always been his habit to proceed to have morning coffee there. The Accused testified that a lady who worked at the coffeeshop would be able to confirm the times that he was at there. This was because he would (a) order coffee from her when he arrived at the coffeeshop, and (b) bid her farewell when he left.[note: 25]
32. The Accused testified that he did not own a black polo T-shirt with red stripes – the attire which Lia had described as being worn by the culprit.[note: 26] According to him, he would wear a T-shirt (or a polo shirt), short pants and a pair of brown loafers to the coffeeshop, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial