Public Prosecutor v Vasavan Sathiadew and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Grimberg
• Judgment Date: 06 October 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 87
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 36 of 1985
• Date: 06 October 1989
• Year: 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1989] SGHC 87
• Defendant Counsel: VCS Vardan (VS Vardan & Co),Lim Choon Mong (Lim & Lim),Leo Fernando and Pillai R Chandran (Leo Fernando)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Offences,s 300 exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224),Murder,Defence of diminished responsibility,Criminal Law,Whether defence made out

Cur Adv Vult

The first, second and third accused (respectively Vasavan, Phan and Wan) are charged, in furtherance of the common intention of them all, and of a certain Buakan Vajjarin (Ah Poo) who was never apprehended, with having murdered Tan Tik Seah (Tan), at his flat in Laguna Park between 10.30pm and midnight on 24 October 1984.

A fourth person, Lee Chee Poh (Rose) was originally named in the charge. She is Tan`s widow. However, on 17 October 1988, she pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of abetment of murder, and was sentenced to seven years` imprisonment, backdated to 25 October 1984, the date of her arrest. She was released from prison on 26 June 1989, a week or so before the trial commenced before us. Rose gave evidence for the prosecution against Vasavan, Phan and Wan.

Rose told us in evidence that she married Tan in 1969, following which they went to live in the Tan family residence in Potong Pasir. It was a kampong house, large enough to accommodate Tan`s parents, most of his siblings, his adoptive brother Vasavan, and their respective families. Vasavan, who was by then already married to a Thai woman called Amnoi, was very close to his adoptive parents and he had a close and affectionate relationship with Tan. Vasavan was also very fraternal and considerate towards Rose, who had no blood relatives in Singapore.

In 1977 Tan bought a flat in Laguna Park. He and Rose took up residence in it. One evening in 1980, Vasavan called at the Laguna Park flat. Rose was home; Tan was still at work. Vasavan told Rose that he had discovered that his wife, Amnoi, was having an affair with Tan, and that Tan and Amnoi had been deceiving them for some time.

About four years later, to be more precise at about 2am on the morning of 24 October 1984, Tan was found dead by Rose. He was lying face up on the floor of a room in the Laguna Park flat. A length of rope was wound tightly round Tan`s neck, and there were signs of disarray in the room, as though a struggle had taken place. Dr Clarence Tan, an experienced forensic pathologist, concluded that Tan`s death had been caused by asphyxia, due to strangulation. In his opinion the ligature, in the form of the rope, had been extremely tight and effectively applied around Tan`s neck. The constricting force had been intense. The ligature was uniformly even and taut in spite of the number of times it was wound round Tan`s neck, and in Dr Tan`s opinion the ligature was likely to have been applied by at least two persons. Among the many injuries found on Tan were fractures of the tips of both superior homes of the thyroid cartilage, and a fracture of the body of the thyroid cartilage. Dr Tan took the view that there had been an intense struggle during the course of asphyxiation.

Upon discovering Tan`s body, Rose roused a neighbour who summoned the police.

At about 12.40am on the morning of 26 October 1984 Rose and Vasavan were formally arrested and charged with having conspired with each other to murder Tan. Vasavan was at the time employed as a site supervisor at a worksite in Loyang, at which a number of Thai workers were also employed. One of them was Phan, who was arrested at the Loyang worksite at about 8.15am on 26 October 1984. Wan and Ah Poo were then employed at another worksite at Lorong Chuan. Wan was arrested at about 1.45pm on the same day. Ah Poo, whom the police were also looking for, could not be found. Phan and Wan were charged with Tan`s murder on 26 October 1984 jointly with Rose and Vasavan.

In her evidence, Rose told us that following the disclosure to her by Vasavan of Tan`s affair with Amnoi, Tan apologized to her and promised to behave. However, Vasavan told her that Tan had conducted himself like an animal, and was not to be trusted.

Rose told Vasavan, she thought in or about 1982, about Tan`s affair with a certain Theresa, a divorcee. Rose had spent some money on witchcraft, in an effort to part Tan and Theresa, but to no avail. She asked Vasavan if he knew anyone with supernatural powers, but he said it was no use and that Tan would never be a good husband again.

In or about September 1983 Theresa had a son by Tan, and he told Rose about the child. She was very distressed and in due course confided in Vasavan again. They talked in her car in the car park of Vasavan`s block of flats, possibly in January 1984. She asked Vasavan to help her win Tan back from Theresa with the help of black magic. Vasavan told Rose that it was useless, and that Tan would only become involved with yet another woman. He said words to the effect: `Your husband will not love you any more. He will make life difficult for you. Both you and I are innocent, yet we are made to suffer because of him. He will not come back to you. If he continues to live in this world he will cause hardship to other women. Why don`t we get some Thais to kill him?` Rose did not agree.

Later in 1984, Tan went overseas, telling Rose that it was a business trip. She discovered that he was lying. Her marriage to Tan was already under considerable strain. She was jealous and angry, mainly with Theresa, who had borne Tan a son of whom Tan`s mother was very fond, whereas Rose had produced no children. Tan insisted that Rose should visit his mother with Theresa`s child, to signify to her mother-in-law that she accepted Theresa as Tan`s mistress. Rose refused, and there were quarrels.

Rose contacted Vasavan, whom she regarded as her closest relative, in his flat. When Vasavan saw her off later, in the car park, Vasavan told Rose that Tan was a hopeless case, and did not love her any more and would never turn over a new leaf. He again suggested that Tan be put to death. Rose demurred at first, saying that she preferred to try again to separate Tan from Theresa by black magic, but Vasavan eventually prevailed upon her saying that he would arrange for Tan to die naturally with the aid of black magic. He asked for photographs of Tan which Rose supplied, she could not remember exactly when. Her recollection was that she supplied a total of four photographs, in sets of two, on two separate occasions three weeks apart. However, nothing happened to Tan and Vasavan explained that the black magic had been unsuccessful because Rose still loved Tan.

In or about mid-1984, after the abortive attempts to bring about Tan`s natural death, Tan told Rose that he wanted a divorce. He abused her, and said that he would make life difficult for her if she refused. He offered to give her the Laguna Park flat if she consented to a divorce, but Rose did not trust him. Once more she turned to Vasavan who told her that Tan was beyond help and would continue to torture her. He suggested employing Thai labourers to kill Tan. Vasavan was insistent and Rose agreed, albeit half-heartedly.

In October 1984, Rose learned that Tan was going overseas. She informed Vasavan, and he asked her to provide him with two duplicate keys to their flat, and $4,500 for the Thais he intended to recruit. Rose had the keys made and withdrew $5,000 from her POSB account on 8 October 1984. She gave the keys to Vasavan, but withheld the money, as she still loved Tan, and was filled with doubt. She reasoned to herself that if she changed her mind, she could alter the locks to the flat.

However, Vasavan pressed her for the money, and she gave it to him some days after she handed him the keys. She told Vasavan that if the death of Tan could not be contrived to look natural, the plan should not be carried out. Vasavan replied that she should not worry, and that the Thais would do a good job.

Tan returned to Singapore from overseas on 23 October 1984. Rose met him at the airport. He was unpleasant to her, as he was the following morning before leaving for work. Rose telephoned Vasavan. She was very depressed and cried. Vasavan said, words to the effect: `Listen to me and kill him. Take my advice. I will make sure everything is alright. Don`t worry.`

At about 4pm that same day, Rose met Vasavan by arrangement at a coffee shop in Laguna Park. It was agreed between them that she would leave the flat at 8pm, and not return until after 1am. That night, about 8pm, Vasavan came to the flat alone. Rose let him in. He was carrying a plastic bag. As agreed, Rose left the flat. She was confused and depressed. In her heart she did not want Tan to die, but she remembered the things he had done to her. She got into her car, and after driving round the block and pausing in the vicinity of the flat, she drove off to a gambling den in Chinatown, where she spent the night playing mahjong. She returned to the flat at about 2am, to find her husband dead.

The prosecution led evidence that, on the afternoon of the day that Tan met his death, Vasavan purchased a length of white nylon rope from a shop in Jalan Besar, similar to the rope used to strangle Tan.

Evidence was also led that Phan had informed his employer at Loyang in early October 1984 that he wished to return to Thailand on 20 October 1984. He approached the project manager again on that date and asked whether an airline ticket had been purchased for him. The project manager gave instructions on 22 October 1984 for an airline ticket to be purchased for Phan.

It was also established by the prosecution that Ah Poo and Wan, who were both on work permits valid until 31 May 1985 informed their employer at Chuan Park on 25 October 1984, the day after Tan was found dead, that they wished to return to Thailand for family reasons.

The trial within the trial

The prosecution sought the admission into evidence of three statements alleged to have been made by each of the accused, the admissibility of all of which were challenged by their respective counsel. The statements were:

(i) oral statements made by each of the accused to Insp Teo Cheow Beng (Insp Teo);

(ii) statements made by each of the accused under s 121(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC); and

(iii) statements made by each of the accused under s 121(5) of the CPC.

...