Senthil Kumaran s/o Veerappan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Roy Grenville Neighbour
• Judgment Date: 07 August 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 221
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 09 October 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: A Thamlselvan (Subra TT & Partners) counsel
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Ong Siu Jin, Deputy Public Prosecutor
• Citation: [2007] SGDC 221

7 August 2007

District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour:

The accused pleaded guilty to the following charge, namely:-

DAC No 55248/2006 [Exhibit P1A]

You,

Senthil Kumaran s/o Veerappan, Male 18 years

NRIC No. S8800119 B

(Singaporean)

are charged that you on 10^th day of December 2006, at about 8.30 a.m. at the vicinity of Lorong 14 Geylang, Singapore together with Shaam s/o Vijayan, m/20 yrs and Muthu Kumar s/o Maniam, m/19 yrs, in the furtherance of the common intention of you all did voluntarily cause hurt to one Krishanmoorthy Vasudevan, m/36 yrs old, to wit, by hitting him with plastic chairs and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2. At the conclusion of the hearing the accused was convicted on the said charge and was sentenced to undergo reformative training at a Reformative Training Centre (RTC). Dissatisfied, the accused has appealed against the sentence.

Facts

3. The facts to which the accused pleaded guilty to are that on 9 Dec 2006, one Muthu Kumar s/o Maniam (Muthu Kumar) and Shaam s/o Vijayan (Shaam) both national servicemen met the appellant at a bar where he worked. There all three of them indulged in a drinking session before proceeding to another bar to consume more liquor.

4. On 10 Dec ’06 at about 5.30 a.m., Muthu Kumar left the company of Shaam and the appellant and proceeded to Geylang. Sometime after 7.00 a.m., that same morning, Shaam and the appellant decided to join Muthu Kumar at Geylang. They then took a taxi to Lorong 14 Geylang.

5. At about 8.30 a.m., Shaam and the appellant arrived in the vicinity of Lorong 14 Geylang. After alighting from the taxi, they saw Muthu Kumar having a confrontation with one Krishnamoorthy Vasudevan (the victim) an Indian national. The appellant and Shaam joined in the confrontation. In the course of the confrontation, the appellant Muthu Kumar and Shaam took plastic chairs and began hitting the victim with the chairs. The victim was injured during the assault. In the midst of the attack, the victim managed to call the police on his handphone and requested for assistance. In the meantime, an eyewitness to the incident attended to the victim. The appellant, Muthu Kumar and Shaam fled then from the scene. When the police arrived at the scene, investigations were conducted and the descriptions of the appellant, Muthu Kumar and Shaam were obtained from an eye witnesses. Based on the descriptions obtained, the appellant, Muthu Kumar and Shaam were subsequently detained in the vicinity. Thereafter, the appellant, Muthu Kumar and Shaam were identified by the victim and an eyewitness.

6. That same day, the victim was conveyed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Emergency Department for treatment of his injuries. Dr Justin Chong Wee-Min after medically examining the victim stated that the victim had a 10 cm laceration over the head and fronto-parietal region. The victim also complained of pain and tenderness over the left forearm. After suturing the victim’s wound and giving him an anti-tetanus injection he was given medication and discharged with 2 days outpatient medical leave.

7. That same day, the appellant and Muthu Kumar too, were sent to Changi General Hospital for a medical examination. Dr Lim Puay Joo who medically examined the appellant found that the appellant smelt of alcohol. He had no injuries. A blood sample obtained from the appellant revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of 197 mg of ethanol per 100 ml of blood. The appellant was discharged without medication and without medical leave.

Dr. Li Yizhi upon medically examining Muthu Kumar found that he had a 8mm superficial cut on the right forehead. He had a blood alcohol level of 109 mg per 100 ml of blood. Consequently, Muthu Kumar was given medication and discharged.

Antecedents

8. On 27 July 2004, the accused was convicted for an offence under section 35(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Chapter 184) and was placed on 15 months’ probation with a time restriction and to serve 80 hours of community service. A charge under section 143 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) for being a member of an unlawful assembly was taken into consideration in sentencing.

Mitigation

9. In mitigation counsel submitted that the appellant is 19 years of age and a national serviceman. On 10 Dec ’06 at about 5.30 a.m., the appellant had finished work as a part-time Disc Jockey (DJ) at Ripples Bar. While he was waiting to collect his pay his friend Shaam came to the pub. They drank at the pub till 7.00 a.m., when Muthu Kumar who was at Geylang called Shaam and asked him to meet him there. At about 7.45 a.m. Shaam and the appellant reached Geylang. As the appellant was alighting from the taxi he saw a man whom he thought was a Bangladeshi (the victim) push Muthu Kumar on the chest. After pushing Muthu Kumar, the victim ran towards a nearby coffee shop. When Muthu Kumar gave chase, the appellant ran after them. Upon reaching the coffee shop he saw the victim hit Muthu Kumar with a plastic chair. The appellant ran in between them to stop the dispute but was hit on the right arm with the chair the victim held. Angered by this, the appellant threw a chair that hit the victim’s right knee. The appellant then left the coffee shop. When they noticed that Muthu Kumar was bleeding from a wound on the head, they proceeded to a nearby shop where they bought a bottle of mineral water and a plaster. Whilst they were about to leave the vicinity in a taxi, they were arrested by the police.

10. The appellant was drunk at the time of the commission of the offence. The alcohol had obviously clouded his judgment. There was no premeditation involved. He had only thrown the chair at the victim after the victim hit him. The appellant now realizes that it was wrong of him to go on a drinking binge and to have joined in the fracas at Geylang. Presently, the appellant is trying to continue with his education which he had discontinued after failing his ‘N’ level examinations. The appellant’s parents having taken a rather laissez faire approach towards the appellant are now taking an active interest in his affairs and are encouraging him to continue with his studies. They have promised to ensure that the appellant does not run foul of the law again. In view of the circumstances, counsel urged the court to call for a pre-sentence report on the appellant with a view to placing him on probation.

Sentence

11. In determining an appropriate sentence all the facts and circumstances of the case were considered as well...