Public Prosecutor v Zhai Huilu

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 03 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 84
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 937281 of 2017, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9028-2021-01
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 19 May 2021
• Hearing Date: 05 January 2021,19 October 2020,19 July 2019,21 October 2020,08 November 2018,22 January 2019,03 February 2021,22 July 2019,09 November 2018,21 January 2019,20 October 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Kong Kuek Foo (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Gino Hardial Singh, Tan Shu Ling, Kwoh Ji Wei (Abbots Chambers LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Penal Code,Voluntarily causing hurt by means of an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death,Evidence,Proof of evidence,Onus of Proof,Witnesses,Witnesses' credibility,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 84

District Judge Edgar Foo: Introduction

Mr Zhai Huilu (“the Accused”), a 38-year-old male Chinese National had claimed trial to the following charge:

DAC 937281-2017 (Amended)

You … are charged that you, on 14 October 2017, at about 10.30 a.m., at the common corridor on the 20th floor of Block 448A Bukit Batok West Avenue 9, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Islam Mohammad Ariful, by means of a cement scraper, an instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, to wit, by hitting him once on the mouth with the cement scraper, causing him to suffer a deep laceration on the right upper lip, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 324 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Punishment prescribed by law

The punishment prescribed under section 324 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.

At the conclusion of the trial on 5 January 2021, I found the Accused guilty and convicted him of the charge. On 3 February 2021, after considering the Prosecution’s submission on sentence and the Defence’s mitigation plea, I imposed a sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment on the Accused.

The Accused, being dissatisfied with my decision, had filed his Notice of Appeal against my conviction and sentence. I hereby set out my reasons for my conviction and sentence.

Parties’ evidence and exhibits Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

The Prosecution had called a total of 8 witnesses in their case against the Accused:

No.	Witness	Role	Marking given to witness
1	Sng Song Hoong	FIR caller	PW1
2	Dr Kenric Fan Rui-Pin	Doctor who prepared the medical report on the victim, PW6	PW2
3	Dr Lin Jingping	Doctor who examined PW6	PW3
4	SSSGT Mohammad Nur Azmi Bin Karim	First responding officer	PW4
5	Chandrakasu Murugan	Witness	PW5
6	Islam Mohammad Ariful	Victim	PW6
7	SI Adrian Chua	Investigation officer	PW7
8	SGT Nimrod Goh Tian Jin	One of the responding officer	PW8

In addition to the 8 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered 12 exhibits in support of their case against the Accused:

No.	Exhibit	Marking given to exhibit
1	First information report dated 14 October 2017 (Ref: J/20171014/0141)	P1
2	Medical report on PW6 from Ng Teng Fong Hospital date 27 November 2017	P2
3	PW6’s medical certificate dated 14 October 2017	P3
4	One photograph of PW6 taken by PW4 on 14 October 2017	P4
5	9 photographs taken by PW4 at 12.50 pm on 14 October 2017 at Blk 448A Bukit Batok West Avenue 9	P5(a)-(i)
6	Floor plan of Level 20 Blk 448A Bukit Batok West Avenue 9 drawn by PW4	P6
7	Accused’s arrest report dated 14 October 2017 (Ref: J/2017/1014/2068)	P7
8	Medical invoices and receipt addressed to PW6	P8
9	Accused’s statement under section 23 of the CPC recorded by PW7 at 6.45 am on 15 October 2017	P9
10	Accused’s statement under section 22 of the CPC recorded by PW7 at 6.50 pm on 15 October 2017	P10
11	Case for the Defence dated 14 June 2018	P11
12	DW3’s statement dated 22 October 2018	P12

The Prosecution, with the consent of the Defence, had also tendered the Cautioned Statements of 2 other witnesses:

No.	Exhibit	Marking given to exhibit
1	Cautioned statement of ASP Cheung Yei Yang Paulus, one of the responding officers, dated 20 October 2020	PS1
2	Cautioned statement of Ong Sook Ping, the SCDF paramedic who had attended to the Accused on the day of the incident, dated 20 October 2020	PS2

The Prosecution’s evidence could be summarised as follows: -

PW1 – Sng Song Hoong

PW1 was employed by China Construction South Pacific Development Co. Pte Ltd as a construction safety coordinator¹. On 14 October 2017, PW1 was the safety coordinator in charge of the construction site building HDB flats at Bukit Batok West Avenue 8². Block 448A was one of the HDB blocks which was part in the construction site³. PW1 testified that he was informed by someone that there was a case of fighting between workers at the construction site and he was asked by his manager to call the police⁴. PW1 was at the canteen of the construction site when he made the telephone call to the police⁵. Exhibit P1 was the First Information Report made by PW1 to the police⁶.

After PW1 had called the police, he waited for the police to arrive⁷. While waiting for the police to arrive PW1 saw both the Accused and the victim, PW6⁸. They were both in the canteen and they were standing at different corners of the canteen⁹. PW1 did not know who PW6 was but he recognised the Accused as an employee of Tian Di Engineering Pte Ltd and Tian Di Engineering Pte Ltd was a subcontractor of China Construction South Pacific Development Co. Pte Ltd.

PW6 was covering his mouth and PW1 could see blood around his mouth area. PW6’s shirt was also stained with blood¹⁰. PW1 also noticed some scratch marks on the Accused’s neck. PW1 was standing about one arm’s length away from the Accused when he saw the Accused’s injuries¹¹. PW1 was of the view that the injuries on the Accused were not very serious¹². PW1 also did not know how the Accused’s injuries were caused¹³.

After the police came, they called for an ambulance and PW6 was conveyed to the hospital by the ambulance¹⁴.

PW2 – Dr Kenric Fan Rui-Pin

PW2 was a medical doctor working at the Emergency Department at Ng Teng Fong General Hospital¹⁵ and he was the doctor who had prepared PW6’s medical report, Exhibit P2¹⁶. PW2 confirmed that he had prepared Exhibit P2 using the hospital’s clinical notes on PW6¹⁷ and the doctor who had attended to PW6 was PW3¹⁸.

PW2 noted that paragraph 2 of Exhibit P2 had stated “Patient was involved in a fight at his workplace. His assailant used a cement scraper as a weapon and inadvertently sliced the patient’s upper lip. He was also punched in the face.”. PW2 clarified that he had accidentally typed the word “inadvertently” into Exhibit P2 and the word “inadvertently” was not supposed to be in Exhibit P2¹⁹. PW2 also confirmed that other than the word “inadvertently”, there were no other errors in Exhibit P2²⁰.

PW3 – Dr Lin Jingping

PW3 had been working as a doctor since 2008 and he was working at the Emergency Department of Ng Teng Fong General Hospital on 14 October 2017²¹ and he had attended to PW6 at the Emergency Department on that day²².

PW6 had informed PW3 that he was involved in a fight and the assailant had used a cement scraper as a weapon and it had sliced his lip²³. PW3 confirmed that PW6 did not inform him that the injury to his lip was caused inadvertently or accidentally²⁴. PW6 also did not tell PW3 that he was attacked or assaulted save that he was involved in a fight²⁵.

PW3 also explained that PW6 had complained of upper lip pain and tenderness above his right eye and he had examined PW6’s eye and found that the eye movements were normal. PW3 had also noted that there was a deep laceration on PW6’s right upper lip around the edge of the lip and he had cleaned up the wound before stitching up the wound²⁶.

After treating PW6, PW3 discharged PW6 and prescribed him pain killers and medical leave. He also advised PW6 to follow up for wound care with a general practitioner²⁷.

PW3 also testified that he had written in his case notes that the other party had used a cement scraper as a weapon, sliced PW6’s lips and punched his face. PW3 could not remember if the slicing and punching were part of one action or two separate actions²⁸.

PW4 – SSSGT Mohammad Nur Azmi Bin Karim

PW4 was the first responding police officer to arrive at the scene. When PW4 arrived at the scene, he met up with PW1²⁹. PW1 informed him that the victim, PW6 was his worker and that PW6 had been assaulted by the Accused and he had suffered a cut in his lip³⁰. PW1 also informed PW4 that the fight was over a broom³¹.

PW4 then met up with the Accused and PW6. PW4 saw that PW6 had a cut to his upper lip. He took a photograph³² of PW6’s injury and he proceeded to call for an ambulance³³. PW4 also noted that both PW6 and the Accused had been separated by the time he saw them³⁴. PW4 spoke to PW6 and PW6 informed him that he was working on level 20 and doing some touch up work when he wanted to use his broom. PW6 could not find his broom and he saw the Accused with his broom. There was a scuffle between the 2 of them and PW6 got the injury as a result of the scuffle³⁵. PW6 also did not know where the Accused had obtained the metal object which he had used to hit PW6’s lip³⁶.

PW4 tried to speak to the Accused but he was unable to do so because the Accused could not speak English. PW4 then decided to arrange for a Mandarin speaking officer, PW8, to speak to the Accused³⁷. Another police officer, ASP Paulus also spoke to the Accused³⁸. PW4 had observed visible scratches on the Accused’s neck but there was no bleeding³⁹. PW8 had asked the Accused how he had sustained his neck injury and the Accused had informed PW8 that he had sustained his injury during his scuffle with PW6⁴⁰. The Accused said that he had felt a knock on his head area during the scuffle, but he did not see, and he was not sure how he was injured⁴¹. The Accused told PW8 that his injury was caused by PW6 during the struggle⁴². PW4 also asked PW6 twice about the Accused’s injury but PW6 was reluctant to say anything⁴³.

PW4 then made 2 trips to the scene of the incident – the first trip was to observe the scene and to look for witnesses and the second trip was to take photographs of the scene⁴⁴ . PW4 also took photographs of tools, brooms and a scraper...