Public Prosecutor v V Murugesan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: V K Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 30 August 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 160
• Date: 2005
• Published date: 31 August 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thong Chee Kun, Daphne Chang and Stella Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 160
• Defendant Counsel: The accused in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Weight of evidence,Whether accomplice evidence should be treated with caution,Whether victim abducted with intention of forcing illicit intercourse,Conditions under which offence committed,Elements of offence,Criminal Law,Whether complete penetration required,Rape,Offences,Accused initiator of incident,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Section 366 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Sections 116 illustration (b), 135 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed),Aggravating factors,Kidnapping, abduction, slavery and forced labour,Deterrent sentencing,Accomplice evidence,Whether weight should be given to accomplice evidence,Abduction,Evidence,Section 376(1) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Accused illegally present in Singapore

30 August 2005

V K Rajah J:

1 The accused is a 28-year-old male Indian national. He was committed to stand trial on the following four charges comprising:

(a) illegal entry into Singapore under s 6(3)(a) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) (“illegal entry”);

(b) unlawful possession of a Singapore identity card under s 13(1) of the National Registration Act (Cap 201, 1992 Rev Ed) (“unlawful identity card possession”);

(c) rape under s 376(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“PC”) (“rape”); and

(d) abduction with common intention under s 366 read with s 34 of the PC committed with an accomplice (“abduction”).

At the trial, the accused admitted to and pleaded guilty to the charges of illegal entry and unlawful identity card possession but claimed trial to the charges of abduction and rape.

2 The Prosecution’s case is relatively straightforward. The accused, together with his accomplice Manikkam (who was guilty of illegally remaining in Singapore), abducted the victim, who was slightly tipsy at the material time, and forcibly dragged her to the refuse area located at Block 715 Woodlands Drive 70 (“the Refuse Area”). With the assistance of his accomplice, he raped her. The victim herself was unable to positively identify either the accused or the accomplice as it was dark and she was extremely distressed. Both the accused and Manikkam accused each other of perpetrating the crime.

The Prosecution’s case

The victim’s evidence

3 The victim testified that she had consumed some wine on the evening of 4 March 2004. She subsequently boarded a taxi with a friend and reached the vicinity of her home at around 11.00pm. Upon alighting from the taxi, she still felt somewhat tipsy and vomited on a grass patch at the foot of Block 715 Woodlands Drive 70.

4 She then noticed two men approaching her. One of them spoke to her in a foreign language. The other man stood behind her. She was suddenly grabbed by the waist and arms by the man who had spoken to her and forcibly dragged into a dark room. She was dragged over a distance of about 21.7m. Although still somewhat tipsy and therefore unable to put up a vigorous struggle, she nevertheless remained alert and acutely conscious that she was being forcibly restrained and in grave danger. She continued to scream as well as struggle. She subsequently felt something being inserted into her vagina. A man’s body was also in front of her.

5 In her testimony, she steadfastly maintained that she had been sexually violated. Having previously experienced sexual intercourse, she claimed she was familiar with the sensation. During this traumatic ordeal, she was conscious of the presence of two persons – one person held her down by her hands while the other person violated her. The victim also mentioned that she was having her monthly menses when the incident occurred.

The accomplice’s evidence

6 Manikkam testified that on the evening of 4 March 2004, the accused invited him for a beer drinking session. He accepted the invitation and joined the accused and some others. The accused had already consumed some alcohol by then and appeared to be tipsy. Manikkam stated that he himself consumed half a bottle of beer as well as half a bottle of stout and also became tipsy. He was wearing a white long-sleeved shirt, known as a “jibba”, with black pants, while the accused wore a green short-sleeved T-shirt with dark pants.

7 Around 11.00pm, they decided to return to the multi-storey car park, located near Block 715 Woodlands Drive 70, where the accused stayed. On their way back, as they approached Block 715, they noticed the victim squatting and talking on the phone. She appeared to be drunk.

8 Manikkam testified that it was the accused who suggested that he converse with the victim. Feeling tipsy, Manikkam did as he was instructed. The victim ignored him, walked to the void deck and sat down. At this juncture, the accused led Manikkam to the Refuse Area. Showing Manikkam the Refuse Area, the accused instructed Manikkam to grab the victim and bring her over.

9 Manikkam grabbed the victim and dragged her towards the Refuse Area. As he drew closer to the Refuse Area, the victim began kicking. The accused then caught hold of her legs and assisted him in dragging the victim to the Refuse Area. Upon reaching the Refuse Area the accused opened the door. Manikkam dragged the victim in and pinned her to the floor.

10 The accused instructed him to hold onto the victim’s hands. As the victim was shouting, Manikkam grabbed both her hands and held them over her mouth while simultaneously pinning her down.

11 At that juncture, the accused exclaimed he was going to “do it”. Manikkam understood that to mean the accused was going to have sex with the victim. Despite the darkness, Manikkam could observe the outlines of both the accused and victim’s bodies. The accused was on “on top” of the victim “between her legs” while she struggled.

12 After two to three minutes, the accused stood up and started to put on his underwear and pants. Manikkam requested that the accused hold on to the victim, as it was “his turn”. The accused however continued clothing himself. Manikkam then clambered onto the victim in an attempt to have sexual intercourse with her. He however failed to achieve an erection.

13 Suddenly, he heard banging on the door of the Refuse Area. The accused, fully dressed by then, urgently pulled him by his collar and said that they had to leave. Manikkam then frantically attempted to put on his clothes. Alarmed by the commotion, the accused opened the door of the Refuse Area and was immediately confronted by a Chinese man. The accused promptly dashed out while Manikkam followed suit, still trying to fully clothe himself. In his haste, Manikkam left behind his underwear and shoes.

14 The accused later brought Manikkam to a flat at Marsiling where they spent the night.

The eyewitnesses’ evidence

15 Latipah bte Ismin (“Latipah”) and Goh Kim Ean (“Goh”) both live in Block 719 Woodlands Avenue 6. Latipah’s flat is located on the seventh floor, directly below Goh’s. Both their flats face the Refuse Area and they had a clear view of the site and its immediate vicinity.

16 Latipah testified that on the night of the incident, at about 12.15am, she heard screams and then observed from her flat two dark-skinned men dragging a woman from the void deck of Block 715 Woodlands Drive 70 to the Refuse Area. She heard the woman screaming. Latipah shouted “Oei, police”. The woman desperately shouted back “Call police”. As the two men dragged the woman, she continued to struggle and scream. Latipah hurriedly called the police emergency hotline, which recorded the following first information report, “2 men bring one girl inside the store room. She is shouting. Come now”. While calling, Latipah continued to observe what was happening. One of the men opened a door to the Refuse Area, while the other man dragged the victim in. The man who opened the door then went in and closed the door. The screaming continued.

17 Goh testified that she was at the balcony of her flat when her attention was suddenly drawn to two dark-skinned men and a woman outside the Refuse Area. There was a commotion and someone was shouting. One of the men, who was wearing a round-necked T-shirt, was holding open the door to the Refuse Area. The other man, wearing a light-coloured round-necked, long-sleeved T-shirt, was dragging the victim into the Refuse Area. The woman was struggling and screaming. Once the woman had been dragged into the room, the man who held the door open entered the room and closed the door.

18 Having called the police, Latipah proceeded downstairs to await their arrival. She stood near the Refuse Area. She noticed Lee Wai Lup (“Lee”) approaching. She urgently related to him what she had witnessed. She could still hear the woman screaming.

19 Lee immediately approached the Refuse Area after speaking to Latipah. He heard male laughter and the muffled screams of a woman from inside. He kicked the door and shouted, “Come out”. A few seconds later, the door opened. Two dark-skinned persons emerged one after the other and promptly fled. After ascertaining from the victim that she had been raped, Lee unsuccessfully chased after them.

20 None of the eyewitnesses could positively identify the two men.

Forensic evidence

21 Dr Christopher Syn (“Dr Syn”) testified that a semen stain had been found on the victim’s panty. He further confirmed that the DNA profile of this semen stain matched the DNA profile of a blood specimen that had been submitted to him. Dr Syn stated that the probability of another person having the same DNA profile, selected at random from the Indian population, is estimated to be one in 970 trillion (9.7 x 10 to the power of 14). This to all intents and purposes amounts to a positive identification and confirmation, leaving no room for any doubt that the DNA profiles matched.

22 Inspector David Chan, the investigation officer, confirmed that the relevant blood specimen submitted to Dr Syn had been obtained from the accused. It is of crucial importance that the accused did not challenge the fact that his semen stain was found on the victim’s panty. Finding it impossible to deny this, he attempted to explain how this might have occurred: see [28] below.

Medical evidence

23 Dr Ng Kok Kit (“Dr Ng”) examined the accused and confirmed that the accused was physiologically able to achieve a good erection, sufficient for penetration. Dr Ng confirmed that the accused had informed him of his purported history of premature ejaculation. Dr Ng went on to explain that notwithstanding any purported condition of premature ejaculation (which he could not verify by any objective means), the accused could nevertheless achieve penetration prior to any premature ejaculation. Dr Ng opined that premature ejaculation was not an organic condition and that if a male could perform sexual intercourse successfully it usually...