Public Prosecutor v Shaikh Salman Bin Anwar Baladaram

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeShawn Ho
Judgment Date11 December 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] SGDC 424
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date04 October 2013,03 October 2013,27 November 2013,05 November 2013,04 November 2013,15 November 2013,08 November 2013,06 November 2013
Docket NumberDAC 20017-8/2013, M.A. No. 300/2013/01
Plaintiff CounselDeputy Public Prosecutor Paul Wong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
Defendant CounselMr Ismail bin Hamid (M/s Ismail Hamid & Co.)
Published date17 December 2013
District Judge Shawn Ho: INTRODUCTION

The Accused faced 2 charges of criminal harassment under section 506 of the Penal Code. He was convicted after a trial and sentenced to a total of 2 months’ imprisonment.

The defence lodged a Notice of Appeal against his conviction and sentence on 27 November 2013. The Accused is on bail pending the appeal.

I now give my reasons for my decision. Charges

The 1st charge to which the Accused claimed trial to was as follows:

“You,

Name: SHAIKH SALMAN BIN ANWAR BALADARAM,

MALE / 50 YEARS OLD

NRIC: XXX

D.O.B: 24/9/1962

Nationality: Singaporean

are charged that you on 30 May 2013, at about 6.35 am, at No. 58 Pasir Ris Heights, Singapore, committed criminal intimidation, to wit, by threatening Khaja Shaukath Ali Bin Mohamed Siddique with injury to his person over the phone saying “Don’t make me mad. I will kill all three of you today” with intent to cause alarm to the said Khaja Shaukath Ali Bin Mohamed Siddique, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

The 2nd charge to which the Accused claimed trial to was as follows:

“You,

Name: SHAIKH SALMAN BIN ANWAR BALADARAM,

MALE / 50 YEARS OLD

NRIC: XXX

D.O.B: 24/9/1962

Nationality: Singaporean

are charged that you on 31 May 2013, at about 2.15 pm, at No. 3 Hoe Chiang Road, Singapore, committed criminal intimidation, to wit, by threatening Ahamed Azad S/O Sharafdeen with injury to his person shouting “I am going to kill you”, “I am going to kill your father” and “I will kill you” with intent to cause alarm to the said Ahamed Azad S/O Sharafdeen, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

PROSECUTION’S CASE Events on 30 May 2013 (1st Charge)

At about 6.35a.m. on 30 May 2013, the Accused made a telephone call to PW2 Mr Khaja Shaukath Ali Bin Mohamed Siddique (“Mr Shaukath Ali”). The Accused was angry with Mr Shaukath Ali because he thought that Mr Shaukath Ali had stopped the payment from PW3 Sharafdeen s/o Abdul Rasak (“Mr Sharafdeen”) to the Accused. Mr Sharafdeen is the father of PW1 Mr Ahamed Azad s/o Sharafdeen (“Mr Azad”).

The Accused threatened Mr Shaukath Ali by saying “Don’t make me mad, I will kill all 3 of you today”. Mr Shaukath Ali understood the “3 of you” to be Mr Shaukath Ali, Mr Azad, and Mr Sharafdeen.

This threat to kill caused Mr Shaukath Ali alarm, and he took it very seriously. This was because the Accused’s tone was serious and he meant business, his anger was unlike the previous times that they had spoken to each other, and the telephone call was received at 6.35 a.m..

Out of fear, Mr Shaukath Ali made a police report at 9.20 a.m. (exhibit P61) to protect himself and others, and he also apprised Mr Azad of the Accused’s threat to kill.

Events on 31 May 2013 (2nd Charge)

On the next day (31 May 2013), at about 2.15p.m., after going to the mosque, the Accused went to Mr Sharafdeen’s office together with his friend, DW2 Anthony Chua.

Upon entering the office, the Accused shouted “No one call the police or I kill you all”. The Accused then entered Mr Sharafdeen’s room. He came out of the room, and then re-entered Mr Sharafdeen’s room. The Accused tried to close the door to Mr Sharafdeen’s room, but Mr Azad and the other staff prevented him from doing so. The Accused exited Mr Sharafdeen’s room. The Accused tussled with Mr Azad – he tried to throw punches at Mr Azad who blocked them; they did not make physical contact with each other.2

While the Accused and Mr Azad were tussling outside Mr Sharafdeen’s room, the Accused used vulgarities on Mr Azad. He also threatened Mr Azad as follows: “I am going to kill you”, “I am going to kill your father”, and “I am going to send people to your house tonight.”

Mr Azad described the Accused as being like a loose animal out of a cage. The Accused was shouting at the top of his voice, broke the door to Mr Sharafdeen’s room, and damaged a phone by banging it on the floor.3

Mr Azad testified that he was in fear, and his body was shaking. He believed the Accused’s threats as he was unpredictable. Prior to 31 May 2013, the Accused had sent groups of 6 to 7 men who said they were gangsters4 to the office to collect money.

CLOSE OF PROSECUTION’S CASE

At the close of the prosecution’s case, the court was satisfied that the prosecution had proven that there was some evidence that was not inherently incredible and which satisfies all the elements of the charges against the Accused. Accordingly, the court explained to the Accused the allocution as stated in section 230(1)(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused elected to give his defence from the witness box.

DEFENCE’S CASE

The key areas in which the defence’s case differed from the prosecution’s case are set out below.

On 30 May 2013 (1st charge), the Accused made a telephone call to Mr Shaukath Ali at 6.35a.m.. The Accused did so as he could not reach Mr Shaukath Ali earlier, and he knew that Mr Shaukath Ali would be at home during that time. The Accused told Mr Shaukath Ali “Your actions are killing me”.5 He denied saying “Don’t make me mad. I will kill all three of you today”.

On 31 May 2013 (2nd charge), upon entering the office, the Accused did not shout “No one call the police or I kill you all”. While the Accused entered Mr Sharafdeen’s room, he neither tried to lock the door nor damaged the door.

The Accused admitted that he was violent and very angry. He was on a “rampage”. He also admitted that he had previously sent people to the office to collect debts, and that he had used “pressure tactics” on Mr Azad.

The Accused tussled with Mr Azad on 31 May 2013. However, the Accused denied making the following threats at Mr Azad: “I am going to kill you”, “I am going to kill your father”, and “I am going to send people to your house tonight.”

SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION’S SUBMISSIONS

The prosecution submitted that it had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt as: The evidence from Mr Azad, Mr Shaukath Ali, and Mr Sharafdeen, was coherent and persuasive, and was further buttressed by the evidence from the other prosecution witnesses. The Accused intended the threats to cause alarm to the victims. The word “kill” in the threats would cause alarm. The Accused followed up on the telephone call to Mr Shaukath Ali on 30 May 2013 with a trip to the office on 31 May 2013. The Accused’s claim that he used the phrase “your actions are killing me” during the telephone call on 30 May 2013 was an after-thought. This was because it was not put to Mr Shaukath Ali during cross-examination, and the Accused did not mention the phrase in his statement (exhibit P9). The testimony of DW2 Anthony Chua did not help the defence. This was because Mr Anthony Chua had already left the office before the Accused threatened Mr Azad.

SUMMARY OF DEFENCE’S SUBMISSIONS

The Accused submitted that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt as: The Accused’s actions on 30 and 31 May 2013 were not criminal acts. He was merely a frustrated and angry man asking for money that had not been repaid. For the 1st charge, it was one person’s word against another person’s word. For the 2nd charge, he did not mention the word “kill”. He was merely an angry man with harsh words demanding for his money.

DECISION OF THE COURT: ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE

It is axiomatic that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt: Jayasekara Arachchilage Hemantha Neranjan Gamini v PP [2011] 3 SLR 689 at [1] and [2]. The Court must always bear in mind that the starting point of the analysis of any criminal case is not neutral – an accused is presumed innocent and this presumption is not displaced until the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proof: Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45.

It would be appropriate to first consider the elements of the offence of criminal intimidation. In this regard, section 503 of the Penal Code provides as follows:

Criminal intimidation

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

In PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 at [62]), the High Court stated that both (a) and (b) below must be satisfied in order for an offence under section 503 of the Penal Code to be made out, with: (a) representing the actus reus, and (b) representing the mens rea: A person is threatened with any injury (the first general element): To his person, reputation or property; or To the person or reputation of any one in whom he (ie, the person threatened) is interested. The threat is made with intent (the second general element): To cause alarm to the person threatened; To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or To cause that person to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Ring of Truth to the Accounts of Mr Shaukath Ali and Mr Azad

In the present case, there was a ring of truth to Mr Shaukath Ali’s testimony. First, the Accused called him at the unearthly hour of 6.35 a.m.. The Accused claimed that he called Mr Shaukath Ali at that hour because the Accused knew that he woke up early.6 However, the Accused did not explain why he could not contact Mr Shaukath Ali at other times of the day, including in the evening. Furthermore, there...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT