Public Prosecutor v Rakesh Kumar Prasad

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGMC 35
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC No 903526-7 of 2016
• Published date: 13 December 2018
• Year: 2018
• Hearing Date: 17 October 2017,14 February 2018,13 March 2018,22 September 2016,19 October 2017,20 October 2017,22 February 2017,21 September 2016,23 February 2017,02 April 2018,21 February 2017,13 February 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Sripathy-Shanaz (until 23/02/2017) and Mr James Chew
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Genesis Shen (until 21/02/2017) Mr Steven Lam and Ms Madeline Choong
• Citation: [2018] SGMC 35

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

A male yoga teacher, Rakesh Kumar Prasad (“Accused”), aged 26 years old, was alleged to have molested his then 25 year old female yoga student (“the victim”), by pinching her left upper breast and touching her left breast by slipping his left hand inside her sport brassiere. He allegedly committed his offence over three separate instances in the course of a single yoga session. This was the basis of the first charge against the Accused, which was for an offence of outrage of modesty under section 354(1) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (MAC 903526/2016). This first charge (“outrage of modesty charge”) reads:

“You, Rakesh Kumar Prasad, Male / 25 years old are charged that you, on 26 April 2015 between 12.42 p.m. and 1.04 p.m. in a studio in ‘Real Yoga’ located at #01-14 of No. 9 Tampines Grande, Singapore, did use criminal force on one XXX, a female / then 25 years old (DOB: 31 January 1990), to wit, by pinching her left upper breast and touching her left breast by slipping your left hand inside her sport brassiere, thereby intending to outrage her modesty, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224”

Towards the end of the same yoga session, the Accused also allegedly used criminal force against the victim, when he forcefully grabbed the back of her neck with his right hand. This formed the basis of the second charge against the Accused for using criminal force, an offence under section 352 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (MAC 903527/2016). This second charge (“criminal force charge”) reads: “You, Rakesh Kumar Prasad, Male / 25 years old are charged that you, on 26 April 2015 at about 1.15 p.m. in a studio in ‘Real Yoga’ located at #01-14 of No. 9 Tampines Grande, Singapore, did use criminal force on one XXX, a female / then 25 years old (DOB: 31 January 1990), to wit, by forcefully grabbing the back of her neck with your right hand and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 352 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

The Accused claimed trial to both charges.

At the end of the Prosecution’s case, as there was sufficient evidence to make out each and every element of the two charges, I called on the Accused to enter his defence, and he testified in his own defence. He also called five other witnesses to give evidence.

At the end of the trial, based on the evidence before me, I was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to prove the case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt on both charges, and I convicted the Accused accordingly.

Following his conviction, and after considering sentencing submissions and the documents put up by the Prosecution and the Defence, I imposed a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment on the Accused for the outrage of modesty charge, and a fine of $1,000 (in default 1 week imprisonment) for the criminal force charge.

The Accused has filed an appeal against his conviction. The Prosecution subsequently filed an appeal against sentence. I now set out my detailed grounds of decision.

The Undisputed Facts

The following facts are largely undisputed: The victim signed up for a 1-year membership with Real Yoga sometime in January 2015. She attended classes at the Tampines branch up till 26 April 2015. On 26 April 2015 at about 1.20 am, the victim made online bookings for two classes on 26 April 2015, a ‘hot core’ yoga class scheduled at 12.15 pm, as well as a ‘hot flow’ yoga class scheduled at 1.30 pm. At the same time, she also made bookings for two classes scheduled on 28 April 2015, a 7.15 pm class and an 8.30 pm class. On 26 April 2015, as the victim arrived late to the yoga studio, she missed the 12.15 pm class. She then attended the 12.30 pm class which was to be taught by the Accused. While this was supposed to be a 45-minute group class that was to take place at Studio A, the victim was the only student who attended the class. Thus, for the duration of that class, the victim and the Accused were the only persons present at Studio A. They left the studio at about 1.15 pm. During this 12.30 pm class, the victim did a forward-bending pose on (at least) three instances, at around 12.42 pm, 12.48 pm, and 1.03 pm. At the end of the class at about 1.15 pm, as they were leaving the studio, the Accused used his right hand and made contact with the back of the victim’s neck. The contact lasted for a few seconds. Thereafter, the victim went on to attend the 1.30 pm hot yoga class at Studio B, which was a group class taught by the Accused. There were other students present for this group class aside from the victim. The next day, on 27 April 2015, the victim, accompanied by her manager, returned to Real Yoga Tampines to make a complaint against the Accused. The victim filled in a “customer service request form” (P4). On 27 April 2015 at 8 pm, the victim went to Tampines NPC and lodged a police report against the Accused for molesting her during the yoga class. Thereafter, the victim did not attend the two 28 April 2015 classes that she had previously booked. She also stopped attending any further classes with Real Yoga.

Summary of the Prosecution’s Case

The Prosecution called a total of four witnesses for the entire trial, including the victim (PW1), a colleague of the Accused (Ms Lala – PW2), the victim’s best friend (Eunice - PW3), and the investigating officer (PW4). The essence of the Prosecution’s case on the two charges, as put to the Accused during cross-examination, is as follows¹: On 26 April 2016, the victim attended the 12.30 pm class only because she was late for the 12.15 pm class that she had originally wanted to attend and there was one hour more before her next scheduled class. Prior to attending the 12.30 pm class, the Accused did not ask the receptionist to convince the victim not to attend the 12.30pm class, nor did he tell the victim to go to the earlier 12.15 pm “hot” class. He also did not show reluctance to conduct the 12:30 pm class for her despite her being the only student. During the 12.30 pm class, the victim did not ask the Accused for help with the forward bending pose or with any other pose. Nor was she friendly with him throughout the 12.30 pm class as he had claimed. Instead, during that class, on three instances, between 12.42pm and 1.04pm, the Accused touched the victim’s left breast with the intention of outraging her modesty, and that on all three instances, the victim struck his left arm after he touched her. Further, on the first two instances, between 12.42pm and 12.49pm, the Accused had placed his hands on the victim’s thighs, with his palms facing up, while she was doing the forward pending pose as he knew that her breast would come into contact with his palms when she bent lower. The first occasion occurred at about 12:43:45 pm, when the victim was in the forward bending pose, he had intentionally cupped the victim’s left breast with his left hand. The victim responded by smacking his hand away and saying to him “Don’t touch my boobs”. He then pinched her left breast, skin to skin. On the second instance at 12:49:01 pm, whilst the victim was in the forward bending pose, the Accused had intentionally cupped the victim’s left breast with his left hand a second time, and she again knocked his hand away and said to him “Don’t touch my boobs”. He then pinched her left breast, skin to skin, a second time, and told her to bend even lower or he would pinch her harder. When the victim broke out of the pose at 12:49:08 pm, the Accused told her, “Don’t use the word ‘boob’, and don’t shout in class”. As for the third instance, at about 13:03 pm, when the victim was in a forward bending pose, the Accused had slipped his left hand into her sports bra and touched her left breast, skin to skin. The victim reacted by hitting his left hand away, and also told him not to touch her boobs. At about 1.15 pm, when the victim was leaving the class, the Accused had grabbed the back of her neck with his right hand forcefully, without her consent, and pulled her towards him. He did this with the intention of causing her fear, resulting in the victim being shocked and traumatised. And, with his hand still on her neck, he had said to her “Don’t use the word ‘boob’, don’t shout in class, if not, people will hear”.

Having set out the Prosecution’s case in brief, I will now set out in greater detail the relevant parts of the Prosecution witnesses’ evidence below.

Evidence of the Victim

The victim is a 25-year-old female who works as an assistant manager. On 27th April 2015, she made a police report (P1) stating that

“On 26th April 2015 at 12.30, I attended a yoga class at Real Yoga located at 9 Tampines Grand. I was the only student at the point of time. During the class, I was molested by the Yoga teacher.”

The yoga teacher who allegedly molested her was the Accused.

According to the victim, she signed up for a one year membership at Real Yoga in January 2015 and attended at the Tampines branch. She had attended for 4 months from January to 26 April 2015, usually in the evenings on Monday to Friday from 7 to 9 pm. On Saturdays and Sundays, she would attend two classes, with her preference being the hot yoga class. She had attended classes conducted by the Accused and 10 other instructors before the offence on 26 April 2015.

On 26 April 2015, she was supposed to attend a 12.15 pm yoga class but she was late for that class. The receptionist then informed her that there was a 12.30 pm class by the Accused which she could attend before her next class scheduled at 1.30 pm. The victim took up the suggestion and attended the Accused’s class at 12.30 pm. She was the only student there.

The victim was dressed in a singlet and tights that day. During the class, she was molested by the Accused over three instances.

The commission of the offences by the Accused

...