Ramachandran and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 July 1993
• Date: 09 July 1993
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 7
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Ramachandran a/l Suppiah and another

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1993] SGCA 47

Yong Pung How CJ

,

S Rajendran J

and

Warren L H Khoo J

Criminal Appeal No 7 of 1987

Court of Criminal Appeal

Criminal Law–Complicity–Common intention–Whether accused acted in furtherance of common intention with co-accused to murder deceased–Sections 34 and 302 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Charge–Effect of errors–Whether there was failure of justice such that conviction ought to be set aside–Section 396 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Trials–Close of prosecution's case–Submission of no case to answer–Whether accused's defence should be called–Whether court should have recorded order of acquittal for accused–Section 189 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Proof of evidence–Confessions–Confession of co-accused–Whether and how it may be used against accused–Section 30 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed)

The appellants were charged with, in furtherance of their common intention, murdering the deceased under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). In the first appellant's s 122 (6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) statement, he stated that on the day of the alleged murder, he stood near the lift while the second appellant went up to the deceased's house to steal. After a while, the second appellant ran to him with blood stains on him and told the first appellant that he had stabbed the deceased. The appellants went back to the house to look for the alleged murder weapon, a knife. The second appellant stated in his s 122 (6) statement that he did not commit the murder and the deceased appeared to be dead when he saw him. Further, the second appellant's admitted in his s 122 (6) statement that the first appellant and him committed the murder.

The trial judges were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the appellants and called them to enter their defence. The appellants were convicted and appealed.

Held, allowing the first appellant's appeal and dismissing the second appellant's appeal:

(1) The confession of a co-accused can only play a supportive role in a criminal prosecution. It cannot by itself form the basis of a conviction. In this case, apart from the confession of the second appellant, there was no evidence to establish that the first appellant, in furtherance of the common intention between him and the second appellant, committed murder by causing the death of the deceased. The first appellant's defence should not have been called and the court should have recorded an order of acquittal: at [34].

(2) As for the second appellant, his retracted confession was found by the trial judges to have been made voluntarily and there was no reason to interfere with this finding. On the basis of that confession there was, at the close of the Prosecution's case, evidence before the court, which was not inherently incredible, that the second appellant had stabbed the deceased: at [36].

(3) Although the defence of the second appellant was called on a charge that included an averment of a common intention between him and the first appellant (as to which there was no evidence), this did not vitiate the proceedings that the conviction against the second appellant ought to be set aside. The record showed that, if at all, the evidence given by the first appellant in his defence was supportive and not prejudicial to the defence of the second appellant: at [38].

(4) There was no reason to interfere with the trial judges' finding of the defence of the second appellant to be “incredible” and that the second appellant intended to kill the deceased when he stabbed him. In respect of the second appellant, the court dismissed the appeal and, in view of the first appellant's acquittal, directed that the references in the charge to the first appellant and to s 34 of the Penal Code be deleted: at [41].

Bhuboni Sahu v The King AIR 1949 PC 257 (folld)

Hari Charan Kurmi v State of Bihar [1964] 6 SCR 623 (folld)

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

Kashmira Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SCR 526 (folld)

Koh Ah Chua v PP [1948] MLJ 11 (folld)

PP v Nordin bin Johan [1983] 2 MLJ 221 (folld)

Sim Ah Cheoh v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 961; [1991] SLR 150 (folld)

Yusoff v PP [1956] MLJ 47 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 189, 396 (consd);ss 122 (5), 122 (6)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) s 30 (consd);ss 5, 17 (1), 17 (2), 21, 24

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 34, 302 (consd)

Evidence Act (India) ss 3, 30

Evidence Ordinance (Malaya) s 30

Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando) (assigned) for the first appellant

R Palakrishnan (Palakrishnan & Pnrs) (assigned) for the second appellant

Lim Yew Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

S Rajendran J

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

1 The two appellants were tried and convicted in the High Court on the following charge:

You, Ramachandran a/l Suppiah and Krishnan a/l Varadan, are charged that on or about 27 July 1984 at about 9am and 11am at Block 131, Tah Ching Road, #09-703, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of you both, committed murder by causing the death of one Packiria Pillai Krishnasamy, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

2 They appealed against their conviction. We allowed the appeal of the first appellant and dismissed the appeal of the second appellant. We now give our reasons.

3 The deceased, an elderly man aged 74 years, lived with his wife Mutthu and daughter Purhanam at their flat at Block 131, Tah Ching Road, #09-703. The deceased was unemployed, Mutthu managed a provision stall at Taman Jurong and Purhanam worked at an electronic factory.

4 In 1981, the second appellant (who was then about 15 years of age) had for a period of about ten months worked for Mutthu at her provision stall as a stall assistant. Whilst working for her he had also stayed at her flat. Some time in June 1984, the second appellant paid a casual visit to Mutthu's stall. Mutthu told him she needed a stall assistant and asked him to recommend someone for the job. The second appellant did not have anyone immediately in mind but promised to find a person.

5 In early July 1984, at about 6.00pm, the second appellant called at Mutthu's flat with the first appellant and told Mutthu that the first appellant's brother was interested in the job. The two appellants then left promising that they would bring the first appellant's brother to see Mutthu at her stall.

6 On 26 July 1984, the second appellant telephoned the flat. Mutthu, Purhanam and the deceased all spoke with the second appellant. The gist of the conversation as told to the court by Mutthu and Purhanam was that the first appellant's brother would be able to come for an interview the next morning with the first appellant but that the second appellant himself would be unable to accompany them as his passport was expiring that day and he had to leave Singapore. As the first appellant did not know how to get to Mutthu's stall, the second appellant enquired if the first appellant could, instead, take his brother to the flat at 11.00am the next morning so that the deceased could interview the brother. This was agreed upon.

7 On 27 July 1984, at about 4.30am and 6.25am respectively, Mutthu and Purhanam left the flat as usual to attend to their respective work. At about 7.50pm that evening when Purhanam returned home from work she saw that the flat had been ransacked and her father was lying naked in a pool of blood at the doorway to her room. She ran out of the flat, met her mother Mutthu who was also returning from her work, and told her what she had seen. Both of them went back into the flat. They called out to the deceased, but there was no response from him. Later, on checking the flat, Purhanam found that a pair of gold earrings (value $140); two lady's wrist-watches (value $150); 30 imitation precious stones (value $50); a gold ring (value $100); and cash of $1,990 were missing from her cupboard.

8 Police officers who went to the scene recovered a blood-stained letter-opener from the floor in the hall. The letter-opener was hidden from view by the articles from two drawers which were strewn on the floor. The bloodstains on the letter-opener matched the deceased's blood. On the patches of blood in the hall near where the deceased was lying the police found shoe imprints. The pattern of these imprints showed that they were from two different shoes. Photographs of the two different imprints were taken.

9 The next day Dr Wee Keng Poh, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy on the deceased. Dr Wee testified...