Public Prosecutor v Somwang Phatthanasaeng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JC
• Judgment Date: 05 November 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 85
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 42 of 1988
• Date: 05 November 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1990
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 85
• Defendant Counsel: BJ Lean (BJ Lean)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Opinion of accused's mental state based on truth of personal background of accused and past events related by accused,Witnesses,ss 300 & 302 Penal Code (Cap 224),Evidence of accused not accepted as regards provocation,Not all of witnesses' evidence should be disregarded,Finding that facts related by accused not true,Provocation,Evidence,Diminished responsibility,s 157 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed),Impeaching witnesses’ credibility,Special exceptions,Court must scrutinize all of the evidence,Criminal Law

Cur Adv Vult

The accused was charged before us on the following charge:

That you Somwang Phatthanasaeng on or about 24 March 1988 at about 8.30pm at No 7B Lorong 20, Geylang, Singapore, committed murder by causing the death of one Thongdam Sarathit and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

At the material time the accused and the deceased, Thongdam Sarathit, (hereinafter called `the deceased`) were both employed by Tan Song Hoe Contractors Pte Ltd (`the company`) as general workers. They were at the date of the offence living at No 7B Lorong 20, Geylang (`the said premises`), which was an apartment leased by the company and used as quarters for its workers.

The apartment was situated on the third level of an apartment block. It comprised two levels. The lower level had a living room, a balcony, two bedrooms, a dining room and a kitchen. On the upper level there were five bedrooms, one of which, the middle room, had a bathroom attached to it. The accused was staying in the middle room together with two other fellow Thai workers, Sommai Somprasong (`Sommai`) and Somboon Saleephan (`Somboon`). The deceased was staying in the room right at the rear on the upper level. There were about 20 people living at the said premises. At the time of his death, the deceased was 34 years of age.

Case for the prosecution

The evidence led by the prosecution showed that on 24 March 1988 at about 11.47pm, the police received information that a death had occurred at the said premises. An ambulance officer who arrived at the scene at about 11.54pm found the deceased lying in a pool of blood on the floor of the bathroom attached to the middle room. He examined the deceased and pronounced him dead.

Senior Forensic Pathologist, Prof Chao Tzee Cheng, arrived at the scene and examined the body at about 3.45am. He estimated that death would have occurred six to eight hours before the examination. An autopsy was performed by Dr Chao and he certified the cause of death to be a fractured skull. There were altogether eight injuries to the head of the deceased. No defensive injuries were found on any part of the body of the deceased. In his opinion, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Following the incident, the police conducted an investigation which disclosed that the accused had planned to return home to Thailand for a short visit. On or about 23 March 1988, the day before the incident, the accused had gone to the company`s office at Lorong 3, Geylang and applied for leave to return to Thailand. In accordance with the company`s usual requirements, he gave the names of two fellow Thai workers, Somboon and Som Chatchawal (`Som`) as his guarantors. On 24 March 1988 between 2pm and 3pm, the accused went to the company`s office again and was handed a typewritten letter of guarantee for him to obtain the signatures of the two guarantors whose names he had earlier given to the company. He was to return the letter of guarantee duly executed on 25 March 1988, upon receipt of which the company would then release his passport to him to enable him to return to Thailand. Under the guarantee, the guarantors would be responsible to pay a bond of $1,000 if the accused failed to return to Singapore on 24 April 1988. Also on the same day at sometime between 3.30pm and 4pm, the accused was given an advance of $100 by the company.

One of the Thai workers living on the lower level of the said premises, Somthai Phunngphan-van (`Somthai`), said that on 24 March 1988, at about 8pm, he was in his room when the deceased came to see him and told him that another employer needed five workers and was willing to pay higher wages and also pay for overtime. The deceased asked Somthai if he would be interested in the offer. Somthai indicated in the negative as he was quite happy working where he was. Shortly after that both the deceased and Somthai went up to the upper level intending to go to the bedroom of the deceased. On the way they passed the middle room and Somthai saw the accused seated on his bed in that room whilst Somboon was lying asleep on another bed. Somthai and the deceased proceeded to the deceased`s bedroom. There, together with four other Thai workers, they chatted. About half an hour later, the deceased said that he was going to take a bath and left the room. He was seen wearing a pair of black shorts. The remaining five persons in the room continued with their conversation until about 10.30pm when they all left. Up to that point in time the deceased had still not returned to his room. On the way down to his room Somthai again passed the middle room and saw the lights in it were still switched on and there was no sign of the accused. Somboon was still fast asleep on his bed.

Sometime after 11pm that night there was a commotion at the said premises. Sommai, who was sharing the middle room with the accused and Somboon, was heard to shout that someone had died in the attached bathroom. Some of the Thai workers attempted to open the bathroom door but were not able to do so as it was locked. It was after some force had been used that they managed to push the door open. The deceased was found lying on the floor of the bathroom. In the meantime one of the Thai workers went to the adjacent premises at No 5B, which was a brothel, to inform the brothel keeper of what had happened and he eventually notified the police. After the arrival of the police all the Thai workers were made to assemble in the living-room on the lower level of the said premises.

While all this was happening at the said premises, the accused had in the meantime arrived at the quarters of a worksite at Thomson Road where some other Thai workers were staying. That was about 11pm. The accused approached Som and requested him to sign the letter of guarantee as a guarantor. Som duly signed it. Thereafter the accused lay down on the lower deck of a bunk-bed. At about 12.30am the next day, Somthai and two other persons came to the quarters and told the Thai workers there that the deceased had died at Lorong 20, Geylang. According to Somthai, when he made the announcement of the death, the accused said that the deceased owed the accused a sum of $400. To this Somthai responded that that was a lie as the deceased never borrowed money from the accused, and as the accused never even had enough money for himself. Soon after this, Somthai and another worker took a taxi to go to Sixth Avenue at Bukit Timah to inform the deceased`s brother-in-law of the death of the deceased. In the meantime, the accused and three other Thai workers took a taxi from the Thomson Road site to return to Lorong 20, Geylang. On arrival at the said premises, the four of them, like all the other workers, were asked to remain in the living room on the lower level. At about 4.40am all the Thai workers were escorted to the CID for further investigation.

At about 9.30am that morning, 25 March 1988, the accused gave a s 122(6) statement to Insp Michael Chan, the investigating officer. Acting as the interpreter for this purpose was one Mr Lim Yew Teck. Mr Lim had been appointed an interpreter and translator of the Thai language by the Thai Embassy in Singapore. Prior to the recording of his statement the accused was sent for the normal pre-statement medical examination. The doctor who examined him was one Dr Anne Goh Eng Kim. In her medical report dated 22 April 1988 (exh `P55`), she noted that the accused was Thai speaking. In the report Dr Goh stated the following:

On examination there were no external injuries seen except for a small bruise on the right hand which he said was sustained during a fall. He also had a small abrasion over the right second toe.

On being cross-examined, she said that that information must have been conveyed to her somehow. She denied that the cause of the injury on the right hand was assumed by her. She agreed that there was no Thai interpreter present that day.

In this regard the prosecution adduced evidence to show that the accused is in fact able to understand and speak simple Hokkien. This was the testimony of one Bernard Tan Cheng Seong (`PW11`), a staff nurse at the Changi Prison Hospital. He recalled speaking in Hokkien to the accused at the Prison Hospital and that the accused was quite fluent and had no difficulties in conversing with him in Hokkien. This evidence of PW11 was corroborated by Dr Chan Khim Yew, the prison psychiatrist, who had also spoken to the accused in colloquial Hokkien.

The recording of the statement of the accused by Insp Michael Chan ended at 10.40am, following which the accused was again referred to Dr Goh for a post-statement examination. No additional injuries were found on the accused. The accused did not challenge the admissibility of that statement. It was not alleged that he did not make that statement voluntarily. Accordingly, we admitted that statement in evidence (exh `P62`). It reads as follows:

The deceased borrowed from me S$800 to send back to his wife to buy a paddy field. I had been asking for repayment for five or six months already but the deceased kept putting off the payment to me.

Last night, at about 8.30pm, after having my dinner and had some drinks of `Johnny Walker` with three of my Thai friends at Lorong 13 Geylang, I alone went back to my quarters at 7-B Lorong 20 Geylang where I met the deceased at the door infront of my room. I then demanded payment of the $800. He replied that he had no money. I told him that he had been putting off payment to me for five or six months already and as I was going back to Thailand on 25th of this month and having no money with me I imployed (implored) him to pay me as I had helped him to raise money to buy the paddy field he wanted with the amount of $800 which he shorted [sic] for buying the said field a few months ago and so as a friend he should appreciate my help and repay me...