Suradet and Others v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 25 August 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGCA 60
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 10 of 1993
• Date: 25 August 1993
• Year: 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: NK Rajah and Jeremiah Choy (Muru Rajah & Partners)
• Citation: [1993] SGCA 60
• Defendant Counsel: Nathan Isaac and Gurdip Singh (Nathan Isaac & Co),Seng Kwang Boon (Deputy Public Prosecutor),Denis Tan and Tan Ko Pin (Toh Tan Partners)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 300(c) Penal Code (Cap 224),Definition,Evidence,Sufficiency of evidence to discharge burden,Criminal act must be done in furtherance of the common intention,s 17(2) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed),Criminal Law,Complicity,Criminal act need not be identical to the common intention,'... suggesting the inference that he committed that offence',Murder,Intention to cause fatal injury under s 300(c) of Penal Code,Words of s 17(2) of our Evidence Act require wider interpretation than that for the Indian counterpart,Proof of evidence,Whether intention present,Intoxication,Burden of proof,Common intention inferred from surrounding circumstances,Words and Phrases,Confessions,General exceptions,Offences,Common intention

The three appellants were convicted in the High Court of the murder of one Anwar Hossain (`the deceased`) in furtherance of a common intention of all of them between 11.30pm on 9 June 1991 and 1.30am on 10 June 1991 at a track off Woodfield Road, Singapore, and were sentenced to death. They appealed against their convictions and at the end of the hearing we dismissed their appeals. We now give our reasons.

The undisputed facts adduced by the prosecution were these. All three appellants and the deceased were working and living on the Senoko site in Woodfield Road and were occupying quarters provided for by their employers. On the night of 9 June 1991, three fellow workers, namely, Sawat Thapwiset (`Sawat`), Wichian Chumsena @ Ah Thia (`Wichian`), Butsee Wongphutta @ Ah Leh (`Butsee`) and Suphap Thongbai (`Suphap`) were having a singing session in Sawat and Butsee`s room which was next to the deceased`s. They were later joined by the first appellant and one Pramuan Saethaisong (`Pramuan`).

The evidence of Sawat, Butsee, Suphap, Pramuan, and Fakrul Islam (`Fakrul`) was adduced by depositions and the prosecution sought to admit these under s 33 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97) as the attendance of the witnesses could not be secured. Defence counsel did not object to the admission of these statements except for the fact that he wanted the court to infer some merry-making on that night.

There was evidence that alcohol was being consumed on the premises. The combined evidence of Sawat, Butsee and Suphap was that at least five bottles of beer were consumed on the premises among six persons (including the first and third appellant). Suphap, Pramuan, Butsee and Sawat all confirmed that the third appellant came into the room at about 10pm, drank a glass of beer, and asked the first appellant to join him for dinner whereupon both left the room. The first appellant rejoined the singing party at around 11pm without the third appellant.

Sometime past 11pm, the deceased who stayed next door came in and told the merry-makers to lower their volume as he was trying to sleep. He picked up a cigarette lighter to light his cigarette and, when the cigarette lighter could not light, threw it on the floor and left. The third appellant then appeared again and called the first appellant out of the room. After the first appellant left, the party folded up. As Sawat was preparing to sleep, the first appellant knocked on the door and asked him where the deceased stayed. Sawat told him that the deceased was next door and the first appellant then left. Butsee also saw the first appellant and corroborated the evidence of Sawat in this respect.

Fakrul was the deceased`s roommate. He stated that at about 11.45pm he woke up and saw the deceased eating. Later, a male Thai (whom he identified as the first appellant) stood at the door of their room and beckoned the deceased to `come`. The deceased then left the room with the male Thai.

The next morning, 10 June 1991, the body of the deceased was found on a track near his quarters. The investigation officer in charge of the case, S/Sgt Zainuddin Lee, arrived at the scene and seized two pieces of timber, one of which was stained with blood. The first appellant was arrested and at two separate identification parades, the first appellant identified the second and third appellants which led to their arrest. At about 5.30pm that day, IO Lee was led by the third appellant to the recovery of another two pieces of timber, both which were stained with blood. The evidence of scientific officer Tan Wai Fun was that three of the four pieces of timber had been broken from the same piece of timber while the fourth piece was a whole piece by itself. When IO Lee questioned the appellants on 10 June 1991 at about 4.50 pm with the assistance of an interpreter, all three separately made admissions to him that they had each used a piece of wood to attack the deceased.

Dr Chao Tze Cheng was the forensic pathologist who examined the deceased`s body. He found 15 groups of injuries two of which were fatal, each being sufficient on its own in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The first fatal injury was a group of multiple small bruises on the right side of the head below which there was a depressed fracture of the right parietal bone. The second fatal injury was a group of lacerations on both ears below which there was a fracture of the right ear temporal bone. He opined that both the injuries were consistent as having been caused by a blunt instrument. He also noted that one of the injuries on the shoulder of the deceased was a square-shaped abrasion which was consistent as having been caused by a block of wood. The fatal injuries had been delivered with great force and the 15 injuries were `so diversified, so multiple` that the deceased must have been attacked from all sides by more than one assailant.

Inspector T Maniam was the recording officer who recorded a statement under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC`) from each of the appellants. Counsel for the first and second appellants had no objection to the admission of the statements. As for the third appellant, a voir dire was held as a result of his counsel`s objection to the voluntariness of the statement at the end of which the trial judge ruled that the statement had been voluntarily made. Mr Isaac for the third appellant did not raise this as a contentious issue on appeal.

The first appellant`s s 122(6) statement was recorded by Insp Maniam at 10.30pm on 10 June 1991 with the help of a Thai interpreter. The entire statement was as follows with relevant parts emphasized:

Last night after I finished my beer my friends and I sang songs at our quarters. The deceased came into the room. He took a cigarette lighter from the room and wanted to light his cigarette but he could not. He got annoyed and threw down the lighter. After that he showed his watch and pointed to it to indicate that it was already late. I was drunk then. After (sic) the deceased

...