Sivalingam Suresh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 12 July 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 139
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 19 of 2000
• Date: 12 July 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kesavan Nair (MPD Nair & Co)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 139
• Defendant Counsel: Jennifer Marie and Tai Wei Shyong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Appeal against conviction,Conviction on victim's evidence alone,Evidence,Victim's evidence unusually compelling,s 354A(1) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Weight of evidence,Use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty,Whether offence proved beyond reasonable doubt,Criminal Law,Appeal against findings of fact,Sexual offence,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences

: The appellant was convicted of the following charge in the district court:

You, Sivalingam Suresh, Male/32 yrs (NRIC No: S1758963F) (DOB: 30 November 1966) are charged that you, on 6 August 1998, at or about 10am, at Blk 319 Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 [num ]11-1503, did use criminal force to one Mokbul Md Sharaf Ali Shiekh, Male/26 yrs, intending to outrage the modesty of the said person, to wit, by holding a knife in your right hand and pointing it at his lower abdomen and using your left hand to unzip his trousers and to touch the groin of the said person, and in order to commit this offence, you voluntarily caused fear of instant hurt to the said Mokbul Md Sharaf Ali Sheikh, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354A(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The appellant was sentenced to 30 months` imprisonment and four strokes of the cane. He appealed against his conviction. I heard his appeal and dismissed it. These were my reasons.

The facts

The victim, Mokbul Md Sharaf, was a Bangladeshi cleaner employed by Boley Contract Company Pte Ltd. On 6 August 1998, at about 10am, the victim was sweeping the corridor on the 11th floor of Blk 319 Ang Mo Kio when the appellant called and gestured the victim towards the appellant`s flat, [num ]11-1503. The victim moved over, thinking that the appellant wanted him to clean that part of the corridor. Instead the appellant gestured for the victim to enter the flat. When the victim refused, the appellant grabbed the victim`s hand, pulled him in, and closed the metal gate and wooden door.

Inside the flat, the appellant forced the victim to sit down on the sofa in the living room by pulling his hand. The appellant then played a video tape which was screened on the television in front of the sofa. After 10 to 12 seconds of watching the tape, the victim realised that it was a pornographic video. He screamed and tried to leave. The appellant prevented him from doing so by taking a knife from the table in front of the sofa with his right hand and pointing it at the victim`s lower abdomen. With his left hand, the appellant unzipped the victim`s trousers and used that hand to stroke the victim`s private parts over his underwear.

After 10 to 12 seconds of stroking, the victim overcame his fear and rushed towards the door. He tried opening the door but had difficulty doing so. The appellant then moved towards the door and opened it. The victim rushed out of the flat and down to the rubbish centre at Blk 305 to inform his supervisor. The victim had only worked in Singapore for about two and a half months before the incident, having arrived in May 1998, and did not speak English. The supervisor paged for another Bangladeshi worker, Najir, to interpret. After Najir`s translation, the supervisor called his boss to inform him of the incident. The boss came down to the rubbish centre and brought all of them to the Neighbourhood Police Post. The boss told the police officer on duty, Sergeant Tan Choon Guan (`Sgt Tan`), what transpired and a police report was made.

The party was told to return to the void deck to meet Staff Sergeant Lee On Keat (`S/Sgt Lee`). After meeting up, they went to the appellant`s flat. When the appellant opened the door and saw S/Sgt Lee, he immediately closed the door. A minute or two later, he opened the door. S/Sgt Lee spoke with the appellant. The appellant denied the incident. S/Sgt Lee then asked the victim, Najir, the supervisor and the boss to proceed to Ang Mo Kio Police Station. While they were on their way, they noticed a videotape lying on the ground floor directly below the kitchen window of the appellant`s flat. The police subsequently came to remove the videotape. The cartridge of the tape was damaged when found. The videotape was sent to the Films and Publications Department to be placed in a new cartridge and to be viewed. The tape was confirmed by the Board of Film Censors to contain an obscene film. When the police raided the appellant`s flat at around 8.30pm on the day of the incident, they recovered a knife which the victim identified as being similar to the one used by the appellant.

The defence

The defence was a denial of the incident. The victim`s complaint was attributed as an action carried out in revenge by the victim for being barked at by the appellant`s dogs outside the appellant`s flat. The appellant`s case was that, while returning to his flat with his two dogs, his female...