Public Prosecutor v Sautha Letchumi d/o Supramaniam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Clement Julien Tan Tze Ming
• Judgment Date: 08 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 106
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC No.: 928837 of 2018
• Published date: 23 June 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 05 April 2021,07 April 2021,08 January 2021,24 March 2021,23 March 2021,22 January 2021,13 April 2021,19 January 2021,20 January 2021,31 May 2021,17 August 2020,06 April 2021,18 January 2021,20 April 2021,25 March 2021,13 August 2020,12 April 2021,21 April 2021,19 April 2021,15 April 2021,22 March 2021,14 August 2020,06 January 2021,04 January 2021,21 January 2021,14 April 2021,01 April 2021,16 April 2021,29 March 2021,27 April 2021,11 August 2020,26 April 2021,28 April 2021,05 January 2021,23 April 2021,22 April 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Jason Chua (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr. Kalidass Murugaiyan and Mr. Ashvin Hariharan (Kalidass Law Corporation)
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 106

District Judge Clement Julien Tan Tze Ming:

The accused, Sautha Letchumi d/o Supramniam, 41 years old as at the date of this judgment, claimed trial to one charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to her cousin, one Dione Kathie James. She is alleged to have done so in furtherance of a common intention with her sister, Santha Letchumi d/o Supramaniam (“Santha”). The charge against the accused was brought under Section 325, read with Section 34, of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.), and is framed as follows:

You … are charged that, you on the 26th October 2016 at about 2.39am, at the vicinity of the void deck of Blk 96 Geylang Bahru Singapore 330096, together with Santha Letchumi D/O Supramaniam, and in the furtherance of the common intention of you all, did voluntarily cause grievous hurt to one Dione Kathie James, to wit, by slapping, kicking and using a bag to hit the said Dione Kathie James, thereby causing her to sustain a comminuted fracture of the nasal bone, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.).

Seetha Letchumi d/o Supramniam (“Seetha”), another sister of the accused and Santha, was also complicit in the incident. Seetha was originally charged for the same offence. However, she pleaded guilty to a reduced charge for an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act in separate proceedings and was convicted and fined. Santha also pleaded guilty in separate proceedings to a reduced charge for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. Seetha and Santha appeared as Sautha’s witnesses in these proceedings. Not only do they testify as to Sautha’s innocence. They have also denied their roles in the incident notwithstanding their convictions, and have sought to explain that they were compelled to plead guilty at the material time because of the circumstances they faced then. Various other issues were raised in the course of the trial, ranging from the manner in which the investigations were conducted, to allegations that the prosecution breached its disclosure obligations.

Having considered the evidence adduced in the course of this trial which spanned 35 days, and also the submissions of parties, I have decided to acquit the accused of the charge brought against her. I will set out in this judgment the reasons for reaching this verdict.

Background facts

At about 11.00pm on 25 October 2016, Dione, the victim, was drinking with one Dinesh Kumar (“Dinesh” or “Paal”) at the void deck of Block 96 Geylang Bahru. Block 96 Geylang Bahru was Dinesh’s place of residence. It was Dione’s birthday the next day, i.e., on 26 October 2016. Dione and Dinesh met for celebratory drinks.¹ At that time, Dione was married to one Ryan Mathew. She has six children. Dione claims that Dinesh was just a friend and that they had only started dating two years after the incident.² Dinesh, however, readily admits that he was Dione’s boyfriend at that time.³

Whilst Dinesh and Dione were having drinks, Dione received a call from Santha. What transpired during this telephone call forms the prelude to the incident at Block 96 Geylang Bahru. Insults, verbal abuse and vulgarities were hurled by Santha and Seetha at Dione. There is disagreement between the parties on whether the conversation was one-way, whether all three sisters were actively engaged on the call, and whether Dione had muted her phone. There is an audio recording of the phone call. Only the sisters’ voices can be heard on the recording. The prosecution’s case is that the audio recording contains the entire conversation between the parties. The defence, on the other hand, says that the audio recording had been edited.

Ultimately, it is not entirely clear what the source of unhappiness and grievance was between the sisters and Dione. One possibility was that Dione had called either Santha or Sautha a “slut” on an earlier occasion. Another possibility was that the “family” was not happy with Dinesh. They considered him as an interloper in Dione’s marriage.

It is also not entirely clear why the call was made. On the evening of 25 October 2016, the sisters and their families were gathered in Santha’s house to offer prayers and incense for the sisters’ late father. They usually do so on the eve of Deepavali.⁴ When the call was made by Santha, the prayers had already ended and everyone was gathered in the kitchen chatting and having food. The accused, Sautha, claims that she did not participate in the phone call; only Seetha and Santha did. According to Sautha, she was aware that Santha was speaking on the phone but did not know that it was Dione on the other line. R. Sathiyan (“Sathiyan”) and Henry Chandran s/o Balakrishnan (“Henry”), Santha’s ex-husband and Sautha’s husband respectively, say that they were not privy to the phone call at all.

At about 2am on 26 October 2016, the three sisters, Henry and Sathiyan arrived at Block 96 Geylang Bahru in a private hire car. Different reasons were given for going there. One reason given was that Dione’s father was going down to meet with Dinesh. There was purportedly some unhappiness that Dione was spending time on her birthday with Dinesh, instead of being at home with her children. The sisters thus wanted to resolve their issues with Dinesh and Dione with their uncle present.

After alighting from the private hire car, the three sisters walked ahead of Sathiyan and Henry. As they were walking, Dinesh walked past them towards Sathiyan and Henry. As Dinesh was engaged with Sathiyan and Henry in a confrontation, Dione and Santha became embroiled in a scuffle. How the scuffle started and the extent of Sautha’s and Seetha’s involvement are issues that are widely disputed. It is undisputed that no words were exchanged between the parties before the scuffle broke out.

The prosecution’s case is that Sautha and Santha had set upon Dione. Dione was slapped and kicked. Santha is said to have used a slingbag filled with heavy items to hit Dione. Dione fell to the ground with Santha. Each of them was pulling the other’s hair. The attacks continued whilst Dione was on the ground. Sautha and Santha also pulled up Dione’s dress, exposing her underwear. Seetha is alleged to have used her handphone to record the entire incident.

The defence disputes the prosecution’s narrative. The sisters claim that Dione was the aggressor. She had appeared out of nowhere and pulled Santha’s hairs and as a result, both fell to the ground. According to Sautha, everything happened so quickly. She claimed to have no physical contact with Dione at all as she was rooted to the spot, concerned that Dinesh might hurt Henry.

It is not disputed that Seetha called the authorities. Seetha had intended to call the police. But instead of calling the police, she called for the ambulance.

Dinesh broke up the scuffle when he heard Dione’s shouts. He claimed that Dione’s dress was up to her shoulders and her underwear exposed when he turned around and saw her being assaulted by the sisters. He also claimed that he was hit by the sisters. Dinesh brought Dione to the opposite block (Block 95) to seek refuge, while he returned to Block 96 to retrieve her belongings. There is a video recording of the aftermath of the incident. It shows that when Dinesh returned to Block 96, he was accosted by the three sisters, Henry and Sathiyan. Dinesh could be seen approaching Sathiyan in an aggressive and challenging manner. Both sides continued to argue; insults and vulgarities were hurled at Dinesh, mainly from Seetha and Santha.

Dinesh then rejoined Dione at Block 95. He claimed that she was crying throughout. He also claimed to have noticed some injuries on her.

The ambulance was first to the scene. This was around 2.45am. The police arrived shortly after. According to Dinesh, he brought Dione back to Block 96 when the police arrived. The ambulance record describes the case as being one of a “verbal dispute” and that no one was injured. According to Dione, she had refused to be conveyed to the hospital so that she could provide her account of what happened to the police.

The police spoke to both groups. According to the report of the police officers who attended at the scene, Dione was observed to have sustained some injuries. Dione told the police that she had been assaulted by the sisters. She informed the police that Seetha had recorded the incident with her handphone and asked that Seetha’s handphone be checked. However, no video recording of the incident was found.

After the police left the scene, Dione went to the A&E at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (“TTSH”). There, she was examined by one Dr. Gabrielle Ng (“Dr. Ng”). A battery of tests was ordered. Amongst other injuries, Dione was found to have sustained a comminuted fracture on her nose and bruises and abrasion at various parts of her body.

The case was investigated by one Investigating Officer Daphne Tan (“IO Daphne”). Following her investigations, Section 325 Penal Code charges were preferred against the sisters. Seetha and Santha were charged first. Sautha could not be charged at the same time as she was residing in Germany. Her husband, Henry, had been posted there for two years by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (“MFA”). They left for Germany the day after the incident. For reasons that will be canvassed below, Seetha and Santha pleaded guilty separately to reduced charges. Sautha was charged upon her return to Singapore. She has maintained her innocence throughout.

Against this backdrop, I now set out my findings.

Exhibit P1: The audio recording The ancillary hearing to determine the admissibility of the audio recording

As mentioned above, the prelude to the incident was a phone call between the sisters and Dione at about 11pm on 25 October 2016. The prosecution adduced as...