Rajendra Prasad s/o N N Srinivasa Naidu v PP

Judgment Date28 February 1991
Date28 February 1991
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 7 of 1990,
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Rajendra Prasad s/o N N Srinivasa Naidu
Public Prosecutor

[1991] SGCA 52

Yong Pung How CJ


Lai Kew Chai J


Chao Hick Tin J

Criminal Appeal No 7 of 1990, Criminal Motion No 2 of 1991

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–General exceptions–Consent–Rape–Whether victim consented to sexual intercourse–Criminal Law–Offences–Rape–Whether victim consented to sexual intercourse–Whether offence made out–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Appeal–Adducing fresh evidence–Conditions to be fulfilled–Whether court should exercise discretion to admit additional evidence–Section 55 (1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Appeals–Rape with hurt–Whether sentence manifestly excessive

The appellant was convicted of committing rape with hurt, as well as robbery. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for rape, and two years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for robbery. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. He appealed against the convictions and sentences and applied by motion to admit additional medical evidence as part of the record to be considered on the hearing of the appeal.

The additional evidence was in the form of a specialist report on the effects of sleeping pills. The victim had consumed a number of sleeping pills before the alleged rape.

Held, dismissing the motion and appeal:

(1) The Court of Criminal Appeal had a wide discretion whether or not to allow additional evidence to be taken. However, this discretion would only be exercised in favour of evidence that: (a) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; (b) would probably have had an important influence on the result of the case; and (c) was apparently credible. The evidence that the appellant sought to admit did not meet any of the three pre-conditions: at [12], [13] and [16].

(2) The sentences imposed on the appellant were not excessive. The rape was premeditated and carefully planned, as the appellant knew exactly where to bring the complainant. The complainant had also been injured and the rape repeated. The fact that the complainant may well have exposed herself to some danger by allowing herself to be chatted up, and to go out with two comparative strangers, was not a mitigating factor in the context of today's society: at [18].

Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1984] 1 WLR 663; [1984] 1 All ER 1009 (refd)

Haw Tua Tau v PP [1981-1982] SLR (R) 133; [1980-1981] SLR 73 (refd)

Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; [1954] 3 All ER 745 (folld)

Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123; [1982] 3 All ER 129 (refd)

Lau Foo Sun v Government of Malaysia [1970] 2 MLJ 70 (refd)

Schofield v Church Army [1986] 1 WLR 1328; [1986] 3 All ER 715 (refd)

Skone v Skone [1971] 1 WLR 812; [1971] 2 All ER 582 (refd)

Williams v Reason [1988] 1 WLR 96; [1988] 1 All ER 262 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 122 (6), 189 (1)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 71, 376 (2), 392

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed) s 55 (1) (consd)

J B Jeyaretnam (J B Jeyaretnam) for the appellant

Seng Kwang Boon (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Yong Pung How CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant Rajendra Prasad was convicted of two charges of committing rape with hurt, and was sentenced on the first charge under s 376 (2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) to imprisonment for ten years and to suffer twelve strokes of the cane. No sentence was passed on the second charge, as the offence was considered to be a part of the offence under the first charge and to come within the purview of s 71 of the Penal Code. In addition, the appellant was also convicted of committing robbery of $43 cash and a radio pager from the complainant and was sentenced under s 392 of the Penal Code to imprisonment for two years and a further six strokes of the cane. The sentencing of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant appealed against the convictions and sentences. In doing so, he also filed a criminal motion for an order that additional evidence be admitted and form part of the record to be considered on the hearing of this appeal. The motion and the appeal came on for hearing on the same day. As we were of the view that it would be necessary to consider the relevance and importance of the additional evidence in the context of the whole of the evidence given at the trial and already available in the appeal record, we heard the arguments on the motion together with the arguments on the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the motion and the appeal against the convictions and sentences, and indicated that we would give our reasons later, which we now do.

2 The complainant was a 19-year-old factory girl at the time. On 23 August 1988 at about 3.00pm she was sitting on a stone bench in Outram Park, after buying Upjohn sleeping pills from a nearby clinic and consuming some five of them. She had been in the habit of taking five of them each time twice a week for about a year. A man called Ricky Sim approached her and chatted her up. They were soon joined by his friend, an Indian boy 17 years old at the time, who lived in the same block of flats with him and is the appellant of this appeal. The conversation was carried on in very fluent Hokkien. The three of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Juma'at bin Samad v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 June 1993
    ...(1909) 2 Cr App R 89 (refd) R v Stafford (1969) 53 Cr App R 1 (refd) R v Warren (1919) 14 Cr App R 4 (refd) Rajendra Prasad v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 402; [1991] 2 MLJ 1 (folld) Rodolfo de los Santos v R [1992] 2 HKLR 136 (refd) Suba Singh v PP [1962] MLJ 122 (refd) Tan Hung Song v PP [1951] ML......
  • Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 September 1998
    ...Court. The main question here was whether the evidence was `necessary`. In that case, I applied the case of Rajendra Prasad v PP [1991] 2 MLJ 1 , a case dealing with s 55(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 332) which is materially similar to s 257(1) of the CPC. This case stated......
  • Tan Sai Tiang v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 January 2000
    ......I followed the authority of Rajendra Prasad v PP [1991] 2 MLJ 1 and held that the principles relating to ......
  • Loh Khoon Hai v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 May 1996
    ...... (see Juma`at bin Samad v PP [1993] 3 SLR 338 , Rajendra Prasad v PP [1991] 2 MLJ 1, Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745). ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT