Sarjit Singh Rapati v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 February 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 28
• Date: 02 February 2005
• Subject Matter: Courts and Jurisdiction,Evidence,Accused keeping person in wrongful confinement,Whether victim must experience fear specifically contemplated by charge,Offences,Charge,Witnesses,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether trial judge exercising discretion correctly in refusing to allow Prosecution to call rebuttal witness,Accused charged and convicted of extortion,Whether appellate court's interference with trial judge's findings required under circumstances,First information report,Section 384 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Sentencing,Examination,Whether court at liberty to amend charge where court disagreeing with exercise of prosecutorial discretion,Appellate,Power of appellate court to reverse findings of fact,Accused threatening to keep person in wrongful confinement unless he was paid money,Lodging first information report in circumstances of urgency,Whether report must contain elaborate details of offence,Extortion,Accused's long statement inconsistent with testimony in court,Accused threatening to keep person in wrongful confinement unless paid money,Property,Weight of evidence,Criminal Law,Whether sentences manifestly excessive,Jurisdiction,Article 35(8) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint), s 336(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed),Discrepancies between prosecution witnesses' testimonies,Accused impersonating immigration officer,Nature of prosecutorial discretion,Sections 180(l), 399 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed),Complainant's material omissions in report,Whether discrepancies material,Benchmark sentences
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 86 of 2004
• Published date: 03 February 2005
• Defendant Counsel: Imran bin Abdul Hamid (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Vinit Chhabra (Vinit Chhabra Partnership)

2 Feburary 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 In the district court below, Sarjit Singh Rapati (“Sarjit”), stood accused of the following three offences together with one Paramjit Singh s/o Buta Singh (“Paramjit”):

(a) extortion under s 384 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed);

(b) wrongful confinement under s 342 read with s 34 of the Penal Code; and

(c) false impersonation of an immigration officer under s 170 read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

2 After a joint trial, the district judge (“the judge”) convicted both accused persons on all three charges (see [2004] SGDC 238). The judge sentenced Sarjit and Paramjit to 36 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for the s 384 offence, four months’ imprisonment for the s 342 offence and four months’ imprisonment for the s 170 offence. The judge ordered the imprisonment for the ss 384 and 342 offences to run consecutively, meaning that each accused person would have to serve a total of 40 months’ imprisonment and suffer six strokes of the cane. The judge, however, agreed to grant Sarjit a stay of execution pending appeal.

3 Both accused persons appealed against their convictions and sentences. However, Sarjit was the only one who proceeded with his appeal because Paramjit decided to withdraw his appeal. At the hearing before me, I granted Paramjit leave to withdraw his appeal and proceeded to hear the arguments against Sarjit’s conviction and sentence. At the end of the hearing, I dismissed Sarjit’s appeal against his conviction but allowed the appeal against his sentence in part. I also exercised my powers of criminal revision under s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) to reduce Paramjit’s sentence. I now give my reasons.

Facts

The charges

4 The charges against Sarjit read as follows:

DAC 33828/2003

You are charged that you on 10 July 2003 at about 12.30 pm, at Newton Hawker Centre car-park, together with one Paramjit Singh s/o Buta Singh (M/43 yrs, NRIC No. S1436488-I) and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did extort cash of $200/- from one Mohammad Sharful Islam [“Sharful”], M/27 yrs by intentionally putting him in fear that you would continue to keep his cousin, one Md Faruq Ahmed [“Faruq”], M/23 yrs, in wrongful confinement and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 384 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 read with Section 34 of the same Act.

DAC 35081/2003

You are charged that you on 10 July 2003 at about 11.00 am, between Rowell Road and Newton Hawker Centre car-park, together with one Paramjit Singh s/o Buta Singh (M/43 yrs, NRIC No. S1436488-I) and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did wrongfully confine one Md Faruq Ahmed, M/23 yrs, in a motor vehicle bearing registration number SDY 5552 L, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 342 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 read with Section 34 of the same Act.

DAC 35082/2003

You are charged that you on 10 July 2003 at about 11.00 am, at a coffeeshop along Rowell Road, together with one Paramjit Singh s/o Buta Singh (M/43 yrs, NRIC No. S1436488-I) and in the furtherance of the common intention of you both, did pretend to hold the office of an Immigration Officer, a public servant, knowing that you do not hold such office, and in such assumed character did inspect the work permit of one Md Faruq Ahmed Md Ibrahim Kuhallil, M/23 yrs, a Bangladeshi National, under colour of such office and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 170 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 read with Section 34 of the same Act.

The undisputed facts

5 Since the Prosecution and the Defence did not agree on a Statement of Facts, the judge found it necessary to distinguish the undisputed facts from the disputed ones. The judge found that the following facts were not in dispute:

(a) Both Sarjit and Paramjit met Faruq for the first time on 10 July 2003 at Medina Restaurant. At that time, Faruq was not working for Ablution Pte Ltd as stated in his work permit, but was working as a stall helper at Medina Restaurant. He was therefore working illegally in breach of the condition of his work permit.

(b) Either one or both accused persons identified themselves to Faruq (the Prosecution’s evidence was that they had identified themselves as immigration officers; the Defence claimed otherwise). After checking the work permit, both accused persons knew that Faruq was in breach of the condition in his permit. Faruq also did not provide the contact number of his employer despite being asked.

(c) Thereafter, Faruq left Medina Restaurant together with the two accused persons. Paramjit drove Sarjit’s vehicle to the car park at Newton Hawker Centre.

(d) At Newton Hawker Centre, calls were made to the handphone of Faruq’s cousin, Sharful. A fee for whatever that was to be done in respect of Faruq was also decided. Sharful was to meet the two accused persons at Newton Hawker Centre.

(e) Before 12.00pm that day, Sharful and his friend, Alamgir Bapari (“Alamgir”), went to the Rochor Neighbourhood Police Post, where Sharful informed Sergeant Hari Ram that something had happened to Faruq. Sergeant Hari Ram saw Sharful marking several $50 notes. After Sharful and Alamgir left the police post, Sergeant Hari Ram lodged the first information report. Earlier, Sergeant Hari Ram had told Sharful that he would send the police to Newton Hawker Centre.

(f) There was no dispute that Sarjit expected to be paid for the transaction involving Faruq and that Paramjit was aware of this. Subsequently, both of them met Sharful and Alamgir at Newton Hawker Centre. Shortly thereafter, Paramjit left in Sarjit’s vehicle. Sarjit was arrested and the marked notes amounting to $200 were found on him.

The disputed facts

6 What was in dispute was the Prosecution’s contention that Sarjit and Paramjit had identified themselves as immigration officers. According to the judge’s summary of Sarjit’s evidence, Sarjit testified that he and Paramjit had merely identified themselves as security officers. Paramjit, however, claimed that he did not identify himself. Sarjit was a partner of a security firm, KJK Security Agency, which supplied guards and repatriated foreign workers. Paramjit was a freelance marketing manager with the agency. Sarjit claimed that as security officers, both he and Paramjit were entitled to conduct checks and it was under these circumstances that they asked Faruq for his work permit. Sarjit claimed that when he and Paramjit checked Faruq’s work permit and found that he was in breach of the condition in the permit, they decided to return Faruq to his employer in return for a fee. Paramjit testified that as an employee of Sarjit, he followed whatever Sarjit did.

7 On the issue of wrongful confinement, the Defence’s version of events was that Faruq did not resist when Sarjit and Paramjit told him that they were going to bring him back to his employer. The Defence claimed that Faruq was brought to Newton Hawker Centre for the purpose of returning him to his employer. Both accused persons alleged that either Sharful or Alamgir, or both of them, had planted the $200 that was later found in Sarjit’s shirt pocket.

8 Lastly, there was disagreement over whether Sarjit was very intoxicated at the time of the alleged offences. While the Defence did not rely on the defence of intoxication under s 86(2) of the Penal Code, it argued that the evidence of intoxication would explain why Sarjit was able to remember some things that happened, but not others.

The decision by the trial judge

False impersonation

9 On the issue of false impersonation, the judge disbelieved Sarjit’s claim that he had identified himself as a security officer. The judge found that Sarjit would not have identified himself as a security officer because he knew that he was not one. Sarjit was aware that he did not possess an identification document that was issued to security officers under reg 9 of the Private Investigation and Security Agencies Regulations (Cap 249, Rg 1, 2000 Rev Ed). Neither did Sarjit declare that he was a security officer named in a list of security officers employed by KJK Security Agency. He knew that the licensing authority had never issued a licence to him to act as a security officer.

10 Bearing in mind that Faruq had breached the condition in the work permit, the judge found that it would make more sense for Sarjit to portray himself as an immigration officer because that would enable him to get Faruq to submit to his direction. In any case, the judge found Faruq to be a credible witness because he was not shaken on his testimony that Sarjit had impersonated an immigration officer despite very lengthy cross-examination.

11 The judge acknowledged that the Defence had called one Mohamed Rafi in support of its version that the accused persons had taken Faruq away to see his employer. Mohamed Rafi testified that he had only heard the words “boss, permit”, “see my boss”, “security boss or officer” being spoken on the occasion that he saw Faruq with both accused persons. Mohamed Rafi testified that he had not heard the words “immigration officer” being uttered. The judge, however, refused to attach any weight to his evidence because he did not regard Mohamed Rafi as an independent witness. He found Mohamed Rafi’s account of what had transpired to be vague and that his testimony did not stand up to scrutiny. The judge considered it suspicious that Mohamed Rafi’s memory should centre on the words “boss, permit”, “see my boss”, “security boss or security officer”, when the words would have had no significance for him. The judge also found it curious that Mohamed Rafi was able to clearly remember that the words “immigration officer” were not mentioned but was not able to be more forthcoming on what had happened.

Wrongful confinement

12 The judge disbelieved the Defence’s version that Faruq had agreed to accompany the two accused persons so...