Sivakumar v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 10
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 41 of 1993
• Date: 20 January 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Choo Han Teck (Helen Yeo & Pnrs) and Ahmad Khalis (Wong Khalis & Junaini)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 10
• Defendant Counsel: Seng Kwang Boon (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sudden fight,s 300 exception 4 Penal Code (Cap 224),Special defences,Murder,Criminal Law,Offences,Defence of sudden fight

The appellant, Sivakumar s/o Kurusamy Pandian, was charged under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) with the murder of one Peter s/o Martin, a boy aged 17 years (`the deceased`), on or about 20 December 1991 at about 1.35am outside a 7-Eleven store at Blk 501, Jurong West St 51, Singapore. At the time of the alleged murder, the appellant was 22 years old. He was tried in the High Court, convicted and sentenced to death. We heard his appeal on 14 September 1993 and dismissed it without having to hear the learned deputy public prosecutor. We now give our reasons.

Two days or so before 20 December 1991, late at night, the appellant was accosted by one Ravichandran s/o Arumugam (`Ravichandran`) in the vicinity of the 7-Eleven store near Blk 501, Jurong West St 51, and was warned by Ravichandran that he would `put two holes` in him for assaulting his friend, one Dass. The expression `put two holes` (a gangland expression) meant that the appellant would be stabbed by Ravichandran. When this altercation took place, the appellant was in the company of his girlfriend and two other girls and felt humiliated as Ravichandran had also held him by his throat when administering the warning. This episode was witnessed by the deceased who knew neither the appellant nor Ravichandran.

On 19 December 1991, sometime in the early evening, when the appellant was again in the vicinity of the same 7-Eleven store, in the company of one of his friends, he was again accosted by Ravichandran who warned him yet again for assaulting Dass and was asked to attend a `settlement talk` the next day at Tengah Market. The appellant determined to settle his score with Ravichandran before the `settlement talk` the next day and began marshalling his friends. He assembled 14 of his friends and late that night, after consuming some beer, they scouted around the area of the 7-Eleven store for Ravichandran. The appellant had armed himself with a knife. However, Ravichandran, sensing danger, had quickly removed himself away from the area.

Unable to find Ravichandran, the appellant and his friends returned to the 7-Eleven store past midnight. The appellant saw the deceased seated outside the 7-Eleven store and remembered that he had seen him being humiliated by Ravichandran a day or two before. He mentioned this to his friends, whereupon two of them approached the deceased and, thinking that he was one of Ravichandran`s friends, kicked and assaulted him. This fracas drew the attention of some onlookers who were nearby. They shouted out in order to stop it. The two who were assaulting and kicking the deceased disengaged themselves and, together with the rest of the appellant`s friends, went off in the direction of the onlookers to `take care of them`. The appellant, who was the only person left near the deceased, claimed that the deceased suddenly jumped up, uttered some abusive words and punched him in the face. This had taken the appellant by surprise and caused him to stagger backwards. In the heat of the moment, he whipped out his knife and stabbed the deceased once in the abdomen and quickly fled the scene. His companions followed him. What the appellant claimed has been culled from the 121(1) statement admitted following a trial within a trial and the 122(6) statement admitted at the instance of the appellant.

The foregoing is a brief summary of the material facts which led to the death of the deceased. It needs only be supplemented by the medical evidence which was given by Assoc Prof Steven Chan of the National University Hospital`s department of surgery. His evidence was that he found that the deceased had been stabbed in the right upper quadrant of his abdomen. When he saw the deceased at about 2.05am on 20 December 1991, his blood pressure was unrecordable, his pulse was very weak and his respiration was shallow. A laparotomy, that is an incision into the abdominal cavity, was performed in parallel with continued fluid and blood resuscitation. The peritoneal cavity was found full of fresh blood. The injury was consistent with the stab wound having extended from...