Public Prosecutor v Ravindran Annamalai

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 09 April 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 77
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 19 of 2011
• Year: 2013
• Published date: 10 April 2013
• Hearing Date: 30 October 2012,20 February 2012,23 February 2012,27 February 2012,24 February 2012,21 February 2012,08 February 2013,22 February 2012,06 February 2013,29 October 2012,27 December 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Charlene Tay Chia and Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Kanagavijayan Nadarajan (Kana & Co) and Rajan Supramaniam (Hilborne & Co)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Rape,Attempted murder,Voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon,House-trespass with preparation to assault,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2013] SGHC 77

Chan Seng Onn J:

The accused, Ravindran Annamalai, is a 44-year old male, and was residing with his mother at a flat at Serangoon Avenue 2. The victim, a 29-year old Indonesian female, was employed as a domestic helper in the neighbouring flat (“the Flat”). Her employer had a family comprising four persons, including two children.

The Public Prosecutor proceeded against the accused on the following five charges:

That you, RAVINDRAN ANNAMALAI, 1st CHARGE (“the First Charge”)

between 12.00pm and 2.32pm on the 9th day of September 2009 in the master bedroom of Block [XXX] Serangoon Avenue 2, #[xx-xx], Singapore, did commit rape on one [WS], female/26 years old, by penetrating the vagina of the said [WS] with your penis without her consent, and in order to commit rape on her, you voluntarily caused hurt to her in the master bedroom by dragging her by the hair and pushing her hard on the chest, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) and punishable under section 375(3)(a)((i) of the said Code.

2nd CHARGE (“the Second Charge”)

between 12.00pm and 2.32pm on the 9th day of September 2009 in the children’s bedroom of Block [XXX] Serangoon Avenue 2, #[xx-xx], Singapore, did commit rape on one [WS], female/26 years old, by penetrating the vagina of the said [WS] with your penis without her consent, and in order to commit rape on her, you voluntarily caused hurt to her in the children’s bedroom by dragging her by her hair, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) and punishable under section 375(3)(a)(i) of the said Code.

3rd CHARGE (“the Third Charge”)

between 12.00pm and 2.32pm on 9th day of September 2009 at Block [XXX] Serangoon Avenue 2, #[xx-xx], Singapore, did attempt to commit murder on one [WS], female/26 years old, and in the said attempt, you did certain acts towards the commission of the offence, to wit, you used your hands and a raffia string to strangle her on the neck, and thereafter threw her down from the kitchen window of the 2nd storey of the said block of flats, and you did such acts with the intention that if, by these acts you had caused her death, you would be guilty of murder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 307(1) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224).

4th CHARGE (“the Fourth Charge”)

between 12.00pm and 2.32pm on 9th day of September 2009 at Block [XXX] Serangoon Avenue 2, #[xx-xx], Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one [WS], female/26 years old, to wit, by using a pair of scissors, which is an instrument for cutting, to poke her on the abdomen and to cut her under the chin, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 324 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224).

5th CHARGE (“the Fifth Charge”)

between 12.00pm and 2.32pm on 9th day of September 2009 at Block [XXX] Serangoon Avenue 2, #[xx-xx], Singapore, did commit house-trespass by entering into the said flat used as a human dwelling, having made preparation for assaulting one [WS], female/26 years , and you have thereby committed an offence under section 452 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224).

The five charges related to offences against the same victim and were committed in the same episode. The accused claimed trial to all five charges. I found the accused guilty and convicted him of all the charges, save that I amended the 3rd charge to read as follows:

Amended 3rd CHARGE (“the Amended Third Charge”) That you, RAVINDRAN ANNAMALAI,

between 12.00pm and 2.32pm on 9th day of September 2009 at Block [XXX] Serangoon Avenue 2, #[xx-xx], Singapore, did attempt to commit murder on one [WS], female/26 years old, and in the said attempt, you did certain acts towards the commission of the offence, to wit, you used your hands and a raffia string to strangle her on the neck, and you did such acts with the intention that if, by these acts you had caused her death, you would be guilty of murder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 307(1) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224).

I sentenced the accused to 15 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for each of the First and Second Charges, 12 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane for the Amended Third Charge, 1.5 years’ imprisonment for the Fourth Charge, and 1.5 years’ imprisonment for the Fifth Charge. I ordered the terms of imprisonment of the First Charge and the Amended Third Charge to run consecutively. The other sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accordingly, the aggregate sentence was 27 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. I ordered the term of imprisonment to be backdated to the date of first arrest on 9 September 2009.

The accused has appealed against his conviction on the Amended Third Charge and against the sentence pronounced.

The Prosecution’s case

In brief, the prosecution sought to show that the accused had barged into the Flat unwelcome, sexually assaulted the victim twice and then strangled her. Additionally, they sought to show that she became unconscious and was thereafter thrown down from the kitchen window by the accused. To establish their case, the prosecution relied on the statements of the victim and various witnesses and also on medical and forensic evidence.¹

The victim (PW 1) stated in her conditioned statement that she had been working for her (then) employers for about 8 to 9 months and was happy working for them.² This was her first job overseas as a domestic helper. She knew the accused as “Aneh” but had seldom talked to him or members of his family. She had only greeted him at times when they happened to meet at their doorsteps. The accused’s flat faced her unit.

On the day of the incident, 9 September 2009, the victim was cooking for her employer’s family. Only her female employer and the youngest son were at home that day. Her employer told her that they were expecting Malaysian relatives. While she was cooking, the electricity tripped and the lights went out. She did not know what to do and followed her employer to the front door. The employer conversed with the accused and obtained his assistance in turning the electrical supply to the flat back on by resetting the circuit box outside the Flat.

The Malaysian relatives arrived for lunch at around noon, and everyone left the Flat sometime after 1.30pm, leaving only the victim behind. The door and the gate of the flat were closed. About 10 minutes later, the doorbell rang and the accused asked the victim if he could watch her having her lunch. The victim rejected this request and shut the Flat’s door. About 15 minutes later, in the midst of doing her chores after lunch, the victim realised that the electricity supply to the Flat had tripped again. As she had encountered the same problem that same morning, the victim opened the door and gate of the flat to reset the circuit box. The accused approached her before she could even step out of the flat and asked what the problem was. She informed him that the Flat’s electricity supply had tripped.

The accused then suddenly moved in front of the victim and pushed her hard against her chest into the flat and thereafter rushed in, shutting the main door behind him. She fell to the ground as a result of the push but immediately stood up and tried to escape by dashing towards the door. However, she was caught by the accused and prevented from doing so. She screamed, struggled and shouted for help several times but was silenced by the accused. The accused then dragged her by her hair and T-shirt into the master bedroom and pushed her onto the bed. He pressed a pillow onto her face and told her to keep silent. She heard him say the Malay words “Saya mau kamu” and “Saya bunuh kamu”, which mean “I want you” and “I want to kill you” respectively. She kept struggling but was overpowered. The accused removed her shorts, leaving the victim naked from the waist down. The accused then raped her by inserting his penis into her vagina. After the rape, the victim successfully broke free from the accused after a struggle and ran towards the main door to escape. However, she was overpowered yet again by the accused, who dragged her by her hair into another bedroom in the Flat (“the children’s bedroom”).

The victim was again pushed onto the bed and had her T-shirt and brassiere removed by the accused. She told the accused not to have sex on the bed but to do it on the floor instead to avoid messing up Hindu prayer items placed on the bed. The accused pulled her onto the floor and covered her face with a pillow and proceeded to rape her a second time by inserting his penis into her vagina.

After that, the accused dragged the victim into the kitchen by her hair and took a pair of scissors from a kitchen drawer and placed it against her neck. He then dragged her to the master bedroom by her hair and pushed her onto the bed again. He placed the scissors at her neck, which the victim said caused her pain. The accused then wound a raffia string around her neck and strangled her by pulling both its ends. Thinking that she was going to die, the victim uttered a Muslim prayer and lost consciousness. She subsequently found herself on a hospital bed after regaining full consciousness.

Between the time the victim lost consciousness in the master bedroom and her being conveyed to the Changi General Hospital (“CGH”), she was found at the ground floor of the block of flats covered with a piece of batik cloth. She had sustained injuries and was groaning in pain. The prosecution contended that the accused must have thrown the victim down from the flat’s kitchen window as the victim was unconscious prior to that.

The Defence’s case

The accused’s defence could be summarised briefly as follows. As regards the First and Second rape charges, the accused did not deny having sex with the victim. However, he claimed that there was only one...