Public Prosecutor v Sudev Raja Naran
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Shawn Ho |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] SGDC 216 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Hearing Date | 01 July 2013,02 July 2013,22 February 2013,21 February 2013,03 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | MAC 2899/2012 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Deputy Public Prosecutor Yvonne Poon (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
| Defendant Counsel | Ms Lucy Netto and Ms Roquiyah Begum (M/s Lucy Netto) |
| Published date | 26 July 2013 |
On 29 Oct 2009, at or about 6 a.m., Mr Sudev Raja Naran (the Accused) and Mr Mohammed Eusoph bin Kadir Maideen (DW2) entered a taxi at Boat Quay driven by Mr Mark Mah Pui Mun (PW1).
The Accused faced 1 charge of voluntarily causing hurt to PW1 under section 323 of the Penal Code. He was convicted after a trial and sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment.
The prosecution and the defence have not lodged an appeal in the present case.
I now give my reasons for my decision.
Charge The charge to which the Accused claimed trial to was as follows:
Mr Mark Mah Pui Mun (“PW1”) is a project coordinator. He was a taxi driver for 4 years who drove a taxi from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m..
On 29 Oct 2009, he was driving a SMART taxi with vehicle number SHB 9074 (“the taxi”). At the Boat Quay area, PW1 picked up 2 passengers, including the Accused. The Accused sat in the rear passenger seat directly behind PW1, while DW2 sat on the Accused’s left. They smelled of alcohol when they entered the taxi, and they asked PW1 to drive to Serangoon North, but did not provide him with further directions at this point of time.
PW1 testified that the normal route for reaching Serangoon North was to travel by the Central Expressway (“CTE”) and then Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1.
The Accused and DW2 fell asleep shortly after they entered the taxi. When the taxi was on Yio Chu Kang Road, near Serangoon North Avenue 2, PW1 woke the Accused by tapping on his knee cap, as PW1 needed to know their final destination. The Accused asked PW1 to go to one of the blocks in Serangoon North Avenue 4.
At Serangoon North Avenue 4, the Accused wanted to pay the taxi fare via NETs. However, this was not possible as the taxi was not equipped with any card reader. The Accused was frustrated that the taxi was not equipped with any card reader, and the Accused said “what type of taxi is this – doesn’t have any card reader”. When PW1 suggested driving them to the nearest ATM machine, PW1 was told to drive to Serangoon North Avenue 3 so that they could withdraw money from an ATM.
PW1 drove the taxi to Serangoon North Avenue 3. DW2 alighted from the taxi to withdraw money. Meanwhile, the Accused remained in the taxi and scolded PW1 in a louder than normal voice about the taxi not having a card reader. PW1 did not do anything in response. A few minutes later, DW2 went back into the taxi.
PW1 drove back to Serangoon North Avenue 4. PW1 was paid in cash, and he issued them a handwritten receipt (exhibit D2) (“receipt”), which was signed by PW1. He explained that there was no date or time on the receipt, as the passengers were already irritated and wanted the receipt quickly. The receipt stated that the fare was “$21.60”. PW1 testified that as the journey took about 20 to 30 minutes, the fare should be between $10 to $13, exclusive of the additional midnight charge.
At the point of payment, PW1 was using his hand phone to video-tape the Accused. PW1 said that he did so as after the withdrawal of cash, the Accused and DW2 were getting agitated and very angry, and they scolded PW1 using vulgarities because of the lack of a card reader. When the Accused was paying the taxi fare, DW2 exited the taxi.
When viewing the video footage (Exhibit P1A) which was extracted from his hand phone, about 10 seconds into the 49-second video, PW1 said that the Accused used his hand to hit him at about the time when the Accused said “Sorry Uncle, your taxi”.
PW1 was hit on the side of his head, about 1 inch above his left ear, which caused his head to hit the window on the right-hand side of the taxi. PW1 was unable to see how the Accused hit him. PW1 felt a bit angry when he was hit, and said “Chee Bay” which means “damn” in the Hokkien dialect. PW1 testified that he suffered from head pain and headache after he was hit by the Accused. The Accused left the taxi thereafter. PW1 left the taxi to chase the Accused.
As the taxi was not parked properly – it was still in the “drive” position (automatic) – the taxi moved forward and hit a lorry. The Accused laughed when he saw that the taxi hit the lorry. The lorry driver was seated in the lorry. PW1 quickly went back to the taxi and parked it properly.
PW1 then left the taxi to resume his chase of the Accused, and PW1 shouted in Hokkien “Po Mata, Po Mata” (i.e. “Call the Police, Call the Police”). PW1 said that he was asking the lorry driver to call the police.
PW1 also took out his hand phone to video-tape the Accused. When the Accused saw PW1 using his hand phone to video-tape him, the Accused took out his own hand phone to video-tape PW1. The Accused and DW2 continued to run, and PW1 gave chase.
The Accused and DW2 ran into the lift of a HDB block, and PW1 followed them into the lift as he did not want to lose them and wanted to detain them. The lift travelled upwards. Eventually, the lift travelled downwards and other people consisting mainly of students (both children and teenagers) entered the lift. When these people entered the lift, PW1, the Accused and DW2, “suddenly all quiet down. Like---like nothing has happened”. PW1 testified that he did not enlist their help as he was in a state of shock and did not know what to do, and that he was still recovering from his shock after the Accused had grabbed him from the back in the lift.
When the lift reached the ground floor, the Accused and DW2 ran out of the lift. PW1 continued to chase the Accused. The Accused ran towards the area where PW1 had parked the taxi. The Accused fell after being tripped by PW1 at the void deck. They struggled, and PW1 grabbed hold of the Accused by his arms.
Asking a Passer-By (PW2) for HelpPW1 asked a passer-by, PW2, who is a sole proprietor, for help. PW2 helped PW1 to hold on to the Accused. PW1 told PW2 that the Accused had hit him, and that PW1 was a taxi driver. PW1 asked PW2, who was standing on the ground floor pavement of a HDB block, to call the police. PW1 and the Accused were standing on the road.
By this time, PW1 and the Accused had stopped struggling with each other. They stood apart from each other. PW1 started to video-tape the Accused again. When the Accused saw PW1 doing that, the Accused swung his hand and knocked PW1’s phone to the ground. PW1’s hand phone opened up in 3 pieces.
PW2 called the police on his hand phone. PW2 was in a hurry and left before the police arrived. When the police arrived, they told PW1 to go for a medical check-up, and PW1 did so at Geylang Polyclinic.
PW1’s Previous Brushes with the LawPW1 testified that in the course of being a taxi driver, he had been charged twice for causing hurt to others. On 7 May 2010, PW1 was convicted of causing hurt to a passenger with regard to an incident which took place on 20 September 2009. PW1 explained that on 20 September 2009, a female passenger had left his taxi without paying her fare, and he grabbed her left wrist to pull her back to the taxi with the intention of bringing her to a police station. PW1 testified that when he tried to pull her near his taxi, she kicked him at the shin area and slapped him on his right cheek a few times. After that, they cooled down and called the police.
PW1 denied that the 20 September 2009 incident operated on his mind for the incident involving the Accused on 29 Oct 2009. However, PW1 testified that the 20 September 2009 incident had changed the way he dealt with uncooperative passengers as he realised that he should not be touching any person or using force on them.
CLOSE OF PROSECUTION’s CASEAt 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 charge 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 CASEThe key areas in which the defence’s case differed from the prosecution’s case are set out below.
Events on 29 October 2009The Accused and DW2 had informed PW1, prior to boarding the taxi, that they did not have cash and wanted to pay via NETS. DW2 also told PW1 at the start of the taxi journey to take them to an ATM machine. They told PW1 to take them first to Serangoon North Avenue 3 before proceeding to their final destination at Serangoon North Avenue 4.
The Accused was not woken up by PW1 when they were at Yio Chu Kang Road near Serangoon Avenue 2. Instead, it was DW2 who woke the Accused when they were at or around Serangoon Garden Way. The Accused and DW2 kept asking PW1 why he had taken a longer route, but PW1 did not offer an explanation. The Accused and DW2 were unhappy with PW1 because he had taken a longer route and consequently, the taxi fare was excessively high.
When they had reached their destination, the Accused told PW1, “Sorry uncle, your taxi” because the taxi was moving and collided into a lorry while the Accused was stepping out of the taxi. The Accused denied hitting PW1 in the taxi.
After the Accused had exited the taxi, PW1 came out of the taxi and tried to grab DW2 from the back. The lorry driver then came out and approached the taxi. In response, PW1 spoke to the lorry driver. At this point in time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial