Public Prosecutor v Tay Fook Yuan
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Janet Wang Lan Jee |
Judgment Date | 23 July 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGDC 269 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | DAC 47169-70/2010 |
Year | 2012 |
Published date | 21 May 2013 |
Hearing Date | 02 April 2012,27 April 2012,09 May 2012,08 June 2011,03 November 2011,15 November 2011,13 September 2011,02 November 2011,14 September 2011,01 August 2011,14 March 2012,12 December 2012,01 November 2011,12 September 2011 |
Plaintiff Counsel | DPP Ramu Miyapan |
Defendant Counsel | Dilip Kumar (M/s Gavan Law Practice LLC) |
Citation | [2012] SGDC 269 |
Chua Cheng Yam, Charlie (‘Chua’), a 59 years old retired police officer, and Lin Chin Ngut (‘Lin’), a 54-year old mechanic, were friends. Having had little schooling with difficulty in understanding the English language, Lin sought the assistance of Chua to pay his wife’s credit card bill at the AXS machine. It was in the evening of 15 October 2009 when both friends joined the queue at the AXS machine located at Blk 414 Yishun Ring Road. The accused, a 36-year old businessman, was then using the machine. It was an inexorable wait in the queue and patience wore thin as the accused spent a considerable period of time at the machine. A polemical exchange in Hokkien dialect arose between Chua and the accused over the latter’s hogging of the machine. Mayhem was the order of the night. A scuffle ensued and all three persons were injured. Chua sustained a fracture of his right eye socket, while Lin had fractures of his nasal bone and left facial bone. The accused had a 3 cm haematoma at the back of his head, a 1cm by 1 mm abrasion over his left scrotum and swollen knuckles.
The accused claimed trial to two charges under 325 of the Penal Code (Cap.224) for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to both Chua and Lin1. It was the prosecution’s case that the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to both victims. It was the defence position that the accused had acted in self-defence when he was attacked by both men. The central issue before me was simply whether the accused had deliberately assaulted both Chua and Lin.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I convicted the accused on both charges2. I sentenced him to an imprisonment term of 18 months’ imprisonment on the first charge and 15 months’ imprisonment in respect of the second charge3. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently, making it an aggregate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
Against my order of conviction and sentence, the accused had appealed. The prosecution also appealed against my order of sentence. Alongside the salient features of the evidence presented, I now set out my reasons.
The Prosecution’s case Evidence of Chua Cheng Yam,Charlie (PW5)Chua gave evidence that he was standing in the queue to use the AXS machine at the material time. According to Chua, he was helping his friend, Lin (PW6) to pay his credit card bills at the AXS machine4. Chua testified that they waited while the accused was using the machine. Having waited for some time, both Chua and Lin (PW6) left the queue to search for another machine. They failed to find one and subsequently returned to the same queue and stood behind an Indian man.
It was Chua’s evidence that as the accused was still at the machine, he said to him in the Hokkien dialect- ‘
Chua further testified that he picked up the wallet of the accused and followed the latter when he walked away from the scene. Chua then called the police and continued to follow the accused as he did not want him to escape. According to Chua, he wanted to hand the wallet over to the police for the purpose of identifying the assailant.
It was also Chua’s evidence that both he and Lin (PW6) were not drunk at the material time. Similarly, he disagreed with the defence that the accused had acted in self-defence6.
Evidence of Lin Chin Ngut (PW6) Lin testified that he had requested the assistance of Chua (PW5) to make payment towards a credit card bill. He gave evidence that they waited in the question to the AXS machine. At the material time, the accused was using the machine. As they waited for some time, Lin said they proceeded to look for another machine7. According to Lin, they returned to the same queue and after a long wait, Chua (PW5) politely requested the accused to allow him to pay one bill8. It was Lin’s evidence that the accused uttered the Hokkien words ‘
Lin further testified that he tried to stop the argument, but was punched in his left eye by the accused before he could do anything. It was his evidence that the impact was so great that he bled continuously, felt giddy and hit his shoulder against the wall as he was unsteady. Lin told the court that he sustained a fractured nose and left cheek bone. It was also his evidence that he fled the scene as he was frightened when the accused tried to chase him. He then went to the toilet to stop his bleeding. According to him, when he came out of the toilet, he saw the accused pressing down on Chua (PW5) and hitting him. Lin added that Chua (PW5) asked the accused to let go of him and was struggling to stave off the latter’s blows. As he was bleeding continuously and felt dizzy, Lin testified that he was unable to save Chua (PW5) as the accused sat on and punched him.
It was Lin’s evidence that the accused only stopped hitting Chua (PW5) after he shouted to the latter to call for the police9. Lin categorically maintained when cross-examined that he and Chua (PW5) did not attack the accused. It was also his emphatic evidence that their injuries did not result from the accused acting in self-defence10. During cross-examination, Lin further maintained that he was not involved in the argument with the accused, who simply came over and threw him a punch11.
Evidence of Sgt Akbar Khan (PW3)It was the evidence of Sgt Akbar Khan that he was called to the scene with his colleague, SC Gary Chng. According to Sgt Akbar Khan, both Chua (PW5) and Lin (PW6) approached him and the accused was behind them. It was the observations of Sgt Akbar Khan that both the victims were bleeding, namely, Chua (PW5) was bleeding from the eyes, nose and mouth, while Lin (PW6) was bleeding from the nose and mouth. It was his evidence that the accused was not bleeding anywhere, had a swollen fist and the pair of Bermudas he wore was torn at the groin area12. Sgt Akbar Khan testified that the accused complained of being kicked and experiencing pain in the groin area. According to Sgt Akbar Khan, the accused informed him that he was provoked by both Chua (PW5) and Lin (PW6) at the AXS machine and a dispute subsequently ensued during which they fell to the ground fighting and he was kicked by them. Sgt Akbar Khan further gave evidence that the accused told him that he acted in self-defence. It was also his evidence that the accused complained of headache and giddiness and was sitting on the floor.
Medical evidence Evidence of Dr Ang Hou (PW4)Dr Ang testified that he examined Chua (PW5) and was informed by latter that he was punched over the right eye and the right side of the head during an assault13. It was Dr Ang’s evidence that he observed bleeding from around Chua’s right eye. Upon examination, Chua (PW5) was also found to have a right periorbital haemotoma with subconjunctival haemorrhage and complained of blurred vision in his right eye. A CT scan diagnosed this to be a right orbital fracture. Dr Ang told the court that Chua (PW5) was admitted and given hospitalization medical leave from 16 October 2009 to 22 October 2009. He was also referred to an ophthalmology specialist for follow-up treatment.
It was the evidence of Dr Ang that he examined Lin (PW6) and found him to have sustained a nasal bone fracture and fracture of the left zygomatic arch or a bone in the left cheek14. According to Dr Ang, Lin (PW6) gave an account of being punched over his face and right shoulder, and complained of nose bleed and nose swelling. It was Dr Ang’s evidence that Lin’s injuries were consistent with his account15.
Dr Ang further gave evidence that the accused was examined by his colleague, Dr Lum Wei Ming Vincent at the Emergency Department of TTSH and found to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial