Tan Joo Cheng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 12 February 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGCA 12
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 15 of 1990
• Date: 12 February 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: Giam Chin Toon and Wong Hur Yuin (Wee Swee Teow & Co)
• Citation: [1992] SGCA 12
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: 'Beyond reasonable doubt',Defence of sudden fight,s 300 Exception 4 Undue advantage taken by accused Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether necessary to prove that accused intended to cause injury at vital or dangerous spot,'Intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death',Stab wound inflicted in the course of robbery,s 300(c) Penal Code (Cap 224),Offences,Words and Phrases,Burden of proof,Whether necessary to recite formula in judgment,Evidence,Murder,Criminal Law

The appellant, Tan Joo Cheng, was charged together with one Ong Ah Lek (`Ah Lek`) and one Luah Kang Hai (`Kang Hai`), that he on or about 14 February 1987 at about 2.41am at the second storey of Block 241, Hougang Street 22, Singapore, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder by causing the death of one Lee Juay Heng (`Lee`).

In the course of the trial the judges amended the charge against Ah Lek to one of attempted armed robbery. Ah Lek pleaded guilty to this charge and was convicted accordingly. At the close of the trial the judges found Kang Hai not guilty of murder but guilty of a lesser charge of attempted armed robbery and dealt with him accordingly. The trial judges convicted the appellant on the charge of murder. [See [1991] 1 MLJ 196 .] Against that conviction the present appeal was brought.

Ah Lek lived in a flat at Block 239, Hougang Street 22, close to Block 241 where Lee lived. The appellant, Ah Lek and Kang Hai agreed in the evening of 12 February 1987 that they would rob Lee when Lee returned to his flat that night. The plan was, however, called off because when Lee returned there was a woman in the vicinity.

In the early hours of 14 February 1991 the three again gathered at Ah Lek`s flat. Ah Lek kept a look-out for Lee from his flat. When he saw Lee`s car arriving at the car park below, he alerted the appellant and Kang Hai. The three of them went down to the car park and followed Lee to the ground floor of Block 241. The appellant was armed with a knife whilst Kang Hai had a rope with him.

The appellant followed Lee up the stairs of Block 241 to the second storey. As Lee was about to open the door to his flat, the appellant holding the knife confronted him in order to rob him. Lee resisted. There ensued a struggle between them, in the course of which Lee received a stab wound in the region of the neck. The appellant fled from the scene. Kang Hai reached the top of the stairs just about the time Lee received the stab wound. He also fled. So did Ah Lek who had remained at ground level in his car. Lee died soon after receiving this wound.

According to Dr Clarence Tan, the pathologist who performed the post-mortem on Lee, the stab wound was at the base of the neck anteriorly just to the right of the midline. The track of the stab wound proceeded obliquely downwards towards the right and back. The track had incised into the right innominate vein and terminated in the right pleural cavity. He estimated the depth of the stab wound to be about 5 to 6cm. Dr Tan testified that the wound was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In Dr Tan`s view, for such a wound to be caused, a definite thrusting action of the knife blade into the body along the direction of the wound would be required. Dr Tan rejected suggestions by the defence that the wound could have been caused accidentally by Lee falling on the knife.

In his defence, the appellant said that he grabbed hold of Lee`s shirt with his left hand and held the knife in his right hand pointing at Lee`s abdomen. Lee shouted and pushed him away. As he was pushed the appellant was still holding on to Lee`s shirt. The appellant lost his balance and fell backwards, as a result of which Lee was pulled and fell forwards. As Lee fell forward, the appellant`s right hand which held the knife thrust forward and stabbed Lee. The appellant said that he did not know which part of Lee`s body he had stabbed.

The trial judges accepted Dr Tan`s evidence and rejected the evidence the appellant gave on how the injury occurred. They found that the injury was inflicted intentionally. In the words of the trial judges (at p 202):

The case of the prosecution is that Joo Cheng intended to stab Lee at the base of his neck and the injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and death was so caused; the prosecution is relying on the provision of s 300(c) of the Penal Code [Cap 224]. Counsel for Joo Cheng submitted that the stab wound was inflicted in the course of a struggle between Joo Cheng and Lee, and there was no intention on the part of Joo Cheng to inflict the wound that was inflicted; in other words, Joo Cheng had no intention of stabbing Lee at the base of the neck and the wound inflicted was unintentional. The depth of the wound was only 5 to 6cm. This submission, in our opinion, ignores certain basic primary facts. Joo Cheng was armed with the knife, and he confronted and held up Lee with that weapon; Lee resisted and a struggle between them took place. Joo Cheng obviously used the knife to counter or overcome Lee`s resistance, and in so doing, he stabbed Lee with the knife and stabbed Lee at the base of his neck, a vulnerable and vital part of the body. True it is that there is no direct evidence that he stabbed Lee by way of a downward thrust with the knife held in his right hand in a stabbing manner. However, having considered the evidence of Dr Clarence Tan, the forensic pathologist, our inference is that the wound was inflicted by way of a downward thrust of the knife at the base of Lee`s neck, and the wound so inflicted was intentional. According to Joo Cheng, Lee fell forward and onto him and his right hand holding the knife thrust forward and stabbed Lee. Assuming that Joo Cheng stabbed Lee in that manner (which we do not accept), Joo Cheng had the intention to thrust the knife forward at Lee in the region of Lee`s neck; in other words, he had the intention to inflict the wound in the region of the neck and such a wound was inflicted. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention that Joo Cheng did not intend to inflict that injury. In arriving at this conclusion, we adopt the test laid down by V Bose J in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab [1958] AIR 465

The nature of the stab wound and the fact it was caused by the knife that the appellant was wielding when he tried to rob Lee were not disputed. At the trial, there was some attempt to question whether the stab wound found on Lee was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but the finding of the trial judges that it was was not challenged at the hearing of this appeal.

The main criticism of the decision raised at the appeal was directed at the finding of the trial judges that the appellant intended to inflict the wound found on Lee. Counsel submitted that the trial judges were wrong in inferring that the appellant had the necessary intention merely from the opinion of Dr Tan as to how Lee was stabbed when there was no evidence before the court that the appellant had intended to strike at a vital or dangerous spot of the body. Counsel submitted that the sum total of the evidence for the prosecution was that there was a wound caused by a downward thrust with...