Shoba Gunasekaram v A Rajandran

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Gilbert Low Teik Seang
• Judgment Date: 15 May 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGMC 26
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2001] SGMC 26
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

1. The complainant, Miss Shoba Gunasekaram, instituted a private prosecution against the respondent, Mr A Rajandran, in the form of the following charge in PSS 745/2000 (P1):

"You are charged that you, on or about the 18^th day of April 1999 at about 2 am at 493 Yio Chu Kang Road #02-02, Singapore 787079, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Shoba Gunasekaram to wit, by slapping her on the face and pushing her with intention to cause hurt to the said Shoba Gunasekaram, and have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224)."

2. Both parties were married to one another at the material date of the charge. The respondent, a practising advocate and solicitor, claimed trial to the charge and acted in person for the trial. At the end of the trial, I acquitted the respondent of the charge. Being dissatisfied with my decision, the complainant successfully obtained the Public Prosecutors consent pursuant to section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to appeal against the respondents acquittal.

COMPLAINANT'S CASE

3. In the early hours of 18 April 1999 at about 2 am, the complainant returned to her matrimonial home at 493 Yio Chu Kang Road #02-02 Singapore 787079 after attending a corporate dinner and dance held in the evening of 17 April 1999. Her husband, the respondent was still awake at that time and was waiting for her. He appeared to be angry with her for coming home late and accused her of being drunk even though the complainant denied having had any alcohol at that time. According to the complainant, her husband interrogated her and wanted her to admit that she was having an affair. She denied having an affair and eventually, the respondent gave her a hard slap, pushed her and walked away.

4. The complainant testified that the slap was very painful and she heard ringing noise in her ear after the slap. She started crying and went to bed. She still felt pain in the morning of 18 April 1999, which was a Sunday. However, she did not see a doctor as she thought that the pain might subside. On 19 April 1999, a Monday, she decided to see Dr Terence Koh at Yio Chu Kang MRT Clinic as she was still in pain and she was worried that her eardrums were affected. She was given a medical certificate by Dr Koh for that day.

5. Dr Koh testified that there was no bruising on the complainants face when he examined her. She did not suffer any loss of consciousness. There was also no brain damage as a result of the alleged slap. Neither were the complainants ear-drums damaged. It also appeared from Dr Kohs cross-examination that there was no subsequent follow-up on the complainant by Dr Koh on this matter. The complainant next visited him on 27 December 1999 on other matters. Dr Kohs medical report on the complainant was admitted as Exhibit P2.

6. When the complainant returned to work on 20 April 1999, she decided to make a police report against the respondent. After work on that day, at 6.30 pm, she got her colleague, Miss Rohana binte Mahmud to accompany her to the Kolam Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post ("Kolam Ayer NPP") to lodge the report. According to her, an Indian police officer attended to her there. She alleged that the Indian officer refused to allow her to make a police report for record purposes only. She was told that if she were to make the report, the police would have to call her husband for investigations. As she wanted to save the marriage and hence did not want the matter to be investigated, she decided against making a police report on that day. She only made a police report on the incident about a year later on 4 April 2000 (see Exhibit P4).

RESPONDENTS CASE

7. The respondent elected to give evidence from the witness stand. When the complainant came home on 18 April 1999 at 2 am, he was lying in bed in the master bedroom with his son. He noticed that the complainants gait was unsteady. He then asked her the reason for coming home late in such a condition. To which, the complainant replied that it was none of his "fucking business". The complainant subsequently changed to her night-clothes and lay on the bed with their son in between them. The respondent then decided to ask her about the Rado gold watch which he had seen her wearing recently as he suspected that it was given to her by her lover. The complainant told him that it was none of his business whether she was having an affair or not and she also told him that he had no right to interfere in her affair with her lover.

8. At this point, being provoked by her reply, the respondent reached out across the bed and slapped her. From that angle and position, it was his stand that the slap was only a light one and he did not use much force. (It was also his position that he did not push her as alleged in the charge because of their lying position on the bed at the time the slap was administered.) He then apologised to her as this was the first time in their married life that he slapped her. According to him, she accepted his apology. A few days later, during a meeting with her parents, he again apologised to her about the slap in the presence of her parents and in the end, her parents advised her to change her ways.

9. With regard to the complainants alleged visit to the Kolam Ayer NPP on 20 April 1999 at 6.30 pm, the deputy officer-in-charge of the police post, Inspector Francis Sim Ann Huat, testified that the station records revealed that there was no Indian police officer on duty on that day and time. The records also did not reveal that the complainant and one Miss Rohana binte Mahmud came to the police post in the evening of 20 April 1999 to lodge a police report. Inspector Sim also testified that a police officer could not prevent a person from making a police report for...