Tan Beng Chye v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 November 1965
• Date: 30 November 1965
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 28 of 1965
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)

Tan Beng Chye

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1965] SGFC 9

Tan Ah Tah ACJ

,

M Buttrose J

and

F A Chua J

Criminal Appeal No 28 of 1965

Federal Court

Criminal Law–Conditions necessary to establish attempt to commit offence–Whether appellant's acts amounted to attempt to commit rape–Sections 354, 376 and 511 Penal Code (Cap 119, 1955 Rev Ed)

The appellant was charged under ss 376 and 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 119, 1955 Rev Ed) with attempting to commit rape on one B. He was charged in the alternative under s 354 with using criminal force with an intent to outrage B's modesty. According to B's evidence, the appellant had produced a knife and ordered her to walk into some nearby bushes. In the bushes, he had taken off his shorts and lowered his inner pants to his knees. He had then ordered her to remove her coat and trousers. He had also ordered her to remove her knickers; and when she refused, he had pulled at her knickers and threatened to kill her. She had also refused his demands to spit on and caress his penis. B testified that the appellant ran away after a passer-by was alerted.

The appellant was convicted on the main charge of attempted rape and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal in part and altering the conviction to one under s 354 of the Penal Code:

(1) Two conditions are necessary to satisfy s 511 of the Penal Code. First, there must be an attempt to commit the offence. Second, some act must be done towards the commission of the offence: at [8] and [9].

(2) The appellant's acts did not amount to an attempt to commit rape. The court could not agree with the trial judge that “the inference was irresistible that the assailant intended to insert his penis into the girl's private parts”. However, the acts amounted to criminal force committed with the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. Accordingly, the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code. The conviction was accordingly altered to one under s 354: at [10] and [11].

Penal Code (Cap 119, 1955 Rev Ed) ss 354, 376, 511 (consd)

Dato' David Marshall (David Marshall) for the appellant

Dalip Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

F A Chua J

1 The appellant in this case was charged under ss 376 and 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 119, 1955 Rev Ed) with attempting to commit rape on one B and he was charged in the alternative under s 354 of the Penal Code...