7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

Public Prosecutor v Eddy Syahputra [2012] SGDC 214

Suit No Decision Date Court Coram Counsel :MC N 667 of 2011 :25 June 2012 :District C ourt :Liew Thiam Leng :DPP Mr Lee Zu Zhao for the Prosecution; Accused in person.

25 June 2012 District Judge Liew Thiam Leng: 1 The accused is facing a charge of causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap.224). He claimed trial to the charge and at the end of the trial, he was sentenced to 3 weeks imprisonment. He is appealing against the conviction and sentence. The Prosecutions Case 2 On 24 th October, 2010 at about 3.50pm, the victim (PW2 Lim Hwee Shing) was driving along the carpark at Great World City with his family. As he was approaching basement 3 of the carpark, he noticed the accuseds vehicle in front. The accused was having difficulties driving along the basement at the car park as he was driving a big car. Subsequently, the accused stopped his car without parking and alighted from his car which was blocking the path of the victims car. The accused approached the victim in a violent manner and shouting at him. The accused then asked the victim why he could not see that he was driving a big car and that he was trying his best to park his car. An argument ensued and the accused then challenged the victim for a fight . The accused started to assume a boxing stance and asked the victim to come out of his car and have a fight. As the victim was concerned with his family members who were in his car, he alighted from his car to speak to the accused. The accused continued shouting and according to the victim, the accused was standing very close to him and some of the accuseds saliva was touching his face. Thereupon, the accused punched the victim on the right side of his head, resulting in the latter falling onto the floor. Meanwhile, the victims wife who was seated in the car with her children and mother saw the whole incident and shouted at them to stop the fight. The accuseds mother in law also alighted from the vehicle and pleaded with the accused not to beat her son in law. In the process, the victims mother in law fell on the floor but she got up immediately. The victims wife PW1 then shouted that the police had been informed and will be arriving shortly. The accused then got back to his car with his brother DW2 who had also alighted from their car earlier on. Subsequently, the police arrived and spoke to the respective parties concerned. 3 At the end of the prosecutions case, the court was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case for the calling of the defence which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction. Defence was called and after the caution was administered to the accused, he elected to give evidence on oath. The Defence 4 The defence was that there was provocation from the victim and that the accused did not challenge the victim to a fight. On the day in question,he was walking towards the victim as he wanted to explain to the victim that he had to drive slowly at the car park as he was driving a big car and the car park was at a curved angle which made it difficult to park. The accused claimed that he had approached the victim nicely but the latter was angry and told him so what if he was driving a big car. Subsequently, the victim alighted from his car and according to the accused, the victim pushed him on
www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/ 1/7

7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

his chest resulting in the accused falling onto the bonnet of a car which was parked there. The accused alleged that as he got up from the car bonnet, the victim spat at him and in response, he punched the victim. The accused denied approaching the victim in a violent manner and asserted that he did not assume a boxing stance to challenge the victim to fight. The accuseds brother DW2 Tony Chong who was with him as well as his wife DW3 and is sister in law DW4 alleged that they had seen the incident although DW3 and DW4 were seated at the rear of the accuseds car. The ev idence of the v ictim PW2 Lim Hwee Shing 5 The victims evidence was that on the day of the incident, he was driving his car along basement 2 of the Great World City car park towards basement 3. He noticed that the accuseds car which was in front was having difficulties driving past the ramp at basement 2 and while waiting for the accuseds car to move forward, he could hear the vehicle behind him horning persistently. The victim tapped his horn once to indicate to the driver behind him that he was waiting for the accuseds car to move forward. After the accused had moved past the ramp, he proceeded to basement 3 and parked his car at a stop sign. The accuseds car was parked in such a way that it was obstructing the victim and prevented the victim from moving his car forward. Subsequently, the accused walked briskly towards him and shouted at him. The victim wound down his car window and wanted to explain to the accused. The accused then asked the victim why he was horning and why he could not see him trying to drive his big car round the ramp. The victim tried to explain to the accused that it was the vehicle behind him which was horning but the accused refused to listen and kept shouting and hurling vulgarities at the victm. The victim then wound up his car window as he did not want his daughter and mother in law who were inside the car to hear what the accused was saying. The victim decided to alight from his car to reason with the accused as the latters car was blocking his car. When the victim came out of his car, he turned his body to face the accused. The victim could feel that the accused was very close to his face as he could feel the accuseds body heat and sweat. As the accused was very close to the victim, the latter put up his 2 hands to prevent the accused from coming any closer towards him. Before the victim could speak to the accused, the latter was hurling vulgarities at him. The victim could feel the accuseds sweat and saliva spitting on his whole face. Once the victim felt that the accuseds saliva was coming to his mouth, he was angry and asked the accused whether he knew that his saliva was touching his (victims) face. The victim stated that at this time, his mouth was full of saliva and in the process of talking to the accused who was very close to him, his saliva touched the accuseds face. The victim tried to get the accused to be away from his body and in the next instant, the accused moved slightly backward and punched the victim on the left side of his face. The punch caused the victims spectacles to fly off and lost balance. The accused got up and shouted at the accused asking him what he was doing that for. At this stage, the victims wife came and held him back while his mother in law rushed forward to try and hold the accused back. After the victim had got up from the accuseds punch, the victim stated that the accused was still very aggressive and asked him to go to the side and fight with him one to one. The accused was still shouting and making some movements. The victims wife then called the police. While the victim was waiting for the police to arrive, the accused came to the victims car and asked him why dont they settle the matter peacefully. The victim told the accused that at this stage, he had already reported to the police and as he was punched, he did not wish to settle the matter. The victim told the accused that he was going to sue him for the assault. When the victim said that, the accused became angry and challenged the victim to go to the corner and fight again. The accused was still shouting and aggressive. The victim did not respond. The police arrived eventually and the victim was advised to go to the hospital to examine his injuries. The victim had bleeding behind his ear which was swollen and painful. On the next day, the victims nose started to bleed and was told by the doctor that it was caused by the bursting of the blood vessels in his nose. Corroboration of the v ictim PW2s ev idence 6 The victims evidence was corroborated by his wife PW1 Wong Lye Fan, his mother in law PW6 Low Kwee Wah and an independent witness who was the driver of the vehicle behind the victims car
www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/ 2/7

7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

PW7 Anthony Ariffin. First of all, there is no dispute by the defence that the accused had punched the victim on the day of the incident. The independent witness PW7 who was the driver of the vehicle behind the victims car gave evidence that he had horned his vehicle as well as the vehicles behind him since they were held up at the car park by the vehicles in front ie the victims car and the accuseds car. PW7 could see the accused alighting from his car and approaching the victims car in a violent manner. He could see the accused indicating to the victim to have fight as the accused was assuming a boxer stance. He had seen the victim coming out of his car and when both the victim and the accused were together, he could see the victim pushing his chest forward and the next moment, the accused punched the victim causing him to fall. The independent witness, PW7 confirmed that the victim did not hit the accused in any way as the victim was merely holding up his 2 hands. This tied up with the victims evidence that he had put up his hands to prevent the accused from coming closer towards him as he could feel the accuseds body heat and sweat. Likewise, PW7 did not see the victim pushing the accused as alleged, neither did he see the victim spitting at the accused. PW7 also confirmed that after the punch, the accused was seen assuming a boxing stance as if challenging the victim to a fight again. The court had observed the demeanour of the independent witness PW7 and was satisfied that he was an impartial and truthful witness. His account of the incident supported the victims evidence and he had stated that he did not know the victim or the accused before the incident. There was no reason for PW7 to lie in court. 7 The victims wife PW1 and his mother in law PW6 also corroborated the victims evidence that the accused had punched the victim and the latter did not hit the victim at all. In fact, PW6 who was the victims mother in law had to plead with the accused not to hit the victim after the punch by the accused. Quite clearly, there is no evidence to suggest that there was provocation by the victim which would justify a punch from the accused. At best, the accused was irritated by the victim and the punch by the accused was clearly out of proportion in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, as can be seen the accused was a violent person as confirmed by the independent witness PW7 who stated that he could see the accused approaching the victims car in a violent manner and assuming a boxing stance on 2 occasions. Defence evidence 8 The defence did not dispute that the accused had punched the victim on the day of the incident. Neither did they dispute that their car was holding up vehicles at the rear when they were at the basement car park of Great World City. The defence had alleged that the victim had pushed him at the car park resulting in him falling on the bonnet of a car coupled with the victim spitting on him and he had to punch the victim to stop him from doing that. The accused claimed that as a result of the push by the victim, he had chest pains and that after falling on the bonnet of a car which was parked there, he had suffered bruise on his buttocks. The evidence in this case was clearly demolished by the independent witness PW7 who was behind the victims car as he could see the accused approaching the victim in a violent manner and he could see the accused was acting like a boxer and challenging the victim to face him instead of sitting in the car. PW7 could see that both the accused and the victim were exchanging words culminating in the accused punching the victim on his head. PW7 could see that as a result of the punch, the victims spectacles had flown off. The independent witness PW7 had confirmed that he did not see the victim pushing or spitting at the accused. Instead, he had seen the violent behaviour of the accused right from the time when he was seen approaching the victim to the time when the punch was delivered. The accused was the aggressor and was seen adopting a boxer stance twice before and after the punch on the victim. Although the victims wife and mother in law commented that the victim could be hot tempered if provoked, there is no evidence in the present case that the victim had pushed the accused or hit the accused in any way. Moreover, there is no medical evidence to show that the accused had suffered any injuries , neither did he seek any medical treatment. In fact, all the defence witnesses including the accused confirmed that the victim did not hit the accused at all. 9 The court noted that the accused had given evidence in court which is inconsistent with his
3/7

www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/

7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

statement given to the police. In his statement (Exhibit P14 at the 9 th line, he stated that the victim had pushed him with his body but in court he had stated that victim had used his hands to push him. In his statement , the accused did not mention that he had fallen onto a car bonnet as a result of being pushed by the victim but in court, he had asserted that as a result of being pushed by the victim, he had fallen onto a car bonnet. In his statement P14 at Question 1, 6 th line from the bottom, the accused had stated that he could not remember whether the victim had fallen onto the ground but in court, he had stated that the victim had fallen onto the ground after the punch. In his statement P14 at Question 2, the accused had stated that his brother, DW2 Tony Tjong had come out of his car and tried to separate both the victim and him from fighting but in court, he had stated that his brother did not intervene. 10 The defence had called three witnesses who were the passengers in his car. All the 3 defence

witnesses gave contradictory evidence. Their evidence in court contradicted with their statements given to the police. During the trial, the prosecution had applied for impeachment proceedings against the accused and the defence witnesses indicating the inconsistencies of the evidence given by the defence witnesses. An examination of the evidence given by the defence witnesses reveal the following inconsistences:DW2 Tony Tjong 11 He claimed that he did not see the accused punching the victim but he did see the victim pushing

and spitting at the accused. When asked why he did not see the accused punching the victim, his reply was that he was approached by the victims mother in law at that time. The court find this evidence unacceptable as the victims mother in law approached the accused and him only after the accused had punched the victim. If DW2 had seen the victim pushing and spitting at the accused, there is no reason why he did not see the accused punching the victim as the victims mother had not approached them at that point in time. Moreover, according to DW2, he was standing diagonally towards the accused and his view was not blocked in any way. In fact, according to the independent witness PW7 , DW2 was involved in the shouting with the accused and he was behaving in a violent manner as though he wanted to be involved in the fight. 12 There were also inconsistencies in DW2s evidence in court and his statement given to the police

(Exhibit P15). In his statement in response to Question 2, he stated that he was seated at the rear passenger seat but in court, he stated that he was seated in the front passenger seat. In his statement at para.3, he stated that the victim had spat at the accused before pushing him whereas in court, he stated that the victim had pushed the accused first before spitting at him. In his statement at para.3, he had stated that the accused had fallen on the floor after he was pushed by the victim but in court, he stated that the accused had fallen on the bonnet of a car which was parked there. In his statement at para.3, he stated that he saw the accused punched the victim on the latters face but in court he said that he did not see this as the victims mother in law came to talk to him. In his statement at para.4, he stated that his wife DW4 and his sister in law DW3 did not see the incident but in court, he stated that now, he knew that they had seen the incident. He also conceded that after the incident, he did speak to DW3 and DW 4 and they confirmed that they could see the incident from the car. The court noted that if this was the case, his evidence does not make sense as the statement given to the police was in fact recorded way after the incident . The incident was on 24 th October, 2010 but the statement was recorded on 14 th September, 2011 which was almost a year after the incident. He would have spoken to them shortly after the incident and at the time when the statement was recorded almost a year later, he would have known that DW3 and DW4 had seen the incident. In his statement in response to Question 17, his answer was that the victim had spat at the accused twice but in court, he stated that he could not remember how many times the victim had spat at the accused. The witness DW2s evidence that he could see the victim pushing the accused and the latter falling on the bonnet of a car is contradicted by the independent witness PW7 who confirmed that the victim did not push or hit the accused. The court also noted that DW2 is the accuseds brother and would be an interested witness whereas the independent witness PW7 does not know the victim or
www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/ 4/7

7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

the accused at all. As can be seen, DW2 is not a credible witness as his evidence is fraught with inconsistencies. DW3 Akiko Yokota 13 DW3 is the accuseds wife. There are discrepancies in the witness evidence. In court she had stated that when the accused went towards the victims car, the latter had come out of his car immediately but in her statement (Exhibit P16), she stated that the accused was standing outside the victims car door and was talking to the victim. In court, she stated that the first time she saw DW2, Tong Chong was when he was talking to the victims mother in law but in her statement at para.3, she stated that DW2 Tong Chong was standing at another parking lot and watching the incident. The explanation given by her was that she was focusing on her husband and that her statement to the police was more accurate as it was nearer the incident. The court noted that her evidence was contradicted by the independent witness PW7 in 2 aspects. Firstly, she had said in court that the accused did not approach the victim in a violent manner whereas the independent witness had stated that the accused was approaching the victim in a violent manner and was shouting and challenging the victim to have a fight. Secondly, she stated in court that she saw the victim pushed the accused causing the latter to fall on a car bonnet whereas the independent witness PW7 had confirmed that he did not see the victim pushing or hitting the accused. The court also noted that the witness DW3 was the accuseds wife and would be an interested witness as compared to the independent witness DW7 who does not know the accused or the victim at all. Moreover, DW3 had informed the court that the distance between where she was sitting in the accuseds car at the rear and the place where the incident had occurred was much further than where the independent witness PW7 was as the latter was directly behind the victims car and he could see what was going on between the accused and the victim. DW4 Stella Yulis ev idence 14 DW4 is the sister in law of the accused. Her evidence is that the victims car was horning from

behind. She saw the accused approaching the victims car to explain why he was driving slowly. Later, she saw the victim and the accused talking and the accused fell backwards as he was pushed by the victim. She also saw the victim moving his mouth and and that this could have caused the accused to punch the victim. It was pointed out by the prosecution that the evidence of the witness was inconsistent with the statement which she had given to the police (Exhibit P17). In her statement at para.5, 3 rd line from the bottom, she had stated that the accused had asked her husband Tony (DW2) to park the car as it was blocking other cars from driving into the basement carpark whereas in court, she had stated that she was very sure that the accuseds car was not blocking other cars from driving into the basement car park. DW4 informed the court that she saw the victim pushed the accused, causing the latter to fall on the bonnet of a car which was parked there. This contradicted the evidence of the independent witness PW7 who was closeby and had confirmed that he did not see the victim pushing the accused. Likewise, the independent witness saw the accused adopting a boxing stance which DW4 denied having seen the accused doing so. Moreover, the independent witness did not see the victim spitting on the accused. The court also noted that DW4 who is the sister in law of the accused is an interested party as compared to the independent witness who does not know the victim or the accused. 15 The court was of the view that the review of the defence evidence above and the prosecutions

evidence showed that the defence evidence is unreliable as there were numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the defence witnesses including the accused. Defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation 16 The accused had alluded to the defence of provocation. On the evidence analysed above, the

court find that it does not support the defence of provocation. In the case of Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 SLR(R) 45 at [19] cited by the prosecution, Yong Pung How CJ explained that
www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/ 5/7

7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

: ..the appellant was required to demonstrate that he was deprived of his self-control by the provocation and that the provocation was grave and sudden according to the standard of a reasonable man. 17 It is evident from the evidence in the present case that the accused was the aggressor right

from the beginning of the incident. He had alighted from his car at the basement car park of Great World City and was seen by the independent witness (PW7) rushing towards the victim in a violent manner. 17The accused was seen gesticulating to the victim to come out from his car to have a fight. PW7 had seen the accused adopting a boxing stance like a boxer, ready to engage in a fight. The accused was also shouting at the victim when he approached the victims car. The shouting by the accused continued after the victim had alighted from his car. The accused had punched the victim on his head, resulting in the latter falling onto the ground. All the prosecution witnesses including the independent witness PW7 had confirmed that they did not see the victim hitting or spitting at the accused although the victim was also shouting in response to the accuseds shouts. In fact, after the victim was punched and had fallen onto the ground, the victims mother in law PW6 had to plead to the accused not to hit the victim again. Moreover, shortly after the punch, when the victim refused to settle the matter with the accused as the victim indicated that the police had been informed and he would be suing the accused for assault, this infuriated the accused who once again, adopted a boxing stance challenging the victim to a fight again. This was corroborated by the independent witness PW7. There was no provocation on the part of the victim which would justify the accused punching the victim. Right of Self Defence 18 The facts in this case also do not support the right of self defence. As indicated above, the accused was the aggressor and the victim did not hit him in any way. The case of Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor [2008] 4 SLR(R) cited by the prosecution provide the list of requirements to in order to exercise the right of self defence. The relevant requirement in that case is that the person must prove that the harm caused to the victim was reasonably necessary in private defence. On the facts, the accused was the aggressor and the defence witnesses including the accused had confirmed that the victim did not hit the accused. Even if the victim had pushed the accused as alleged, the accuseds punch on the victims head is out of proportion in the circumstances and would exceed the right of self defence. In section 99(4) of the Penal Code (Cap 224), it states that the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. 19 For the abovementioned, reasons, the court was satisfied that the prosecution had proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of voluntarily causing hurt. The accused was found guilty of the charge and convicted accordingly. Before imposing sentence, the court considered the accuseds mitigation in that he has a mother of 73 years old to take care of as well as 2 children. He stated that he was suffering from stress due to relationship issues with his wife and mother. He urged the court to impose a fine. The court also considered the prosecutions address on sentence. The prosecution submitted that the accused is the aggressor in this case and had initiated the action. He had blocked the victims car and the other cars behind at the car park. He had approached the victim and had attacked the vulnerable part of the victim which is a punch on the victims head. The accused had assaulted the victim in the presence of his family members who were seated in his car. The prosecution submitted that there was no remorse by the accused and that a custodial sentence should be imposed. 20 The court noted that this was a road rage case where the accused had attacked the victim in public and it was witnessed by the victims family members as well as an independent witness who was driving his car behind the victims car. The facts showed that the accused was not only the aggressor but was violent in his behaviour ie challenging the victim to a fight with a boxer stance. The victim as well as his wife had informed the court that their son who was in the victims car at the time
www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/ 6/7

7/20/12

LawNet Legal Research

of the incident was traumatised and had mentioned that he was afraid of going to the Great World City Shopping Mall as his father (ie the victim)was attacked by the assailant (ie the accused). The norm in road rage cases is a custodial sentence ranging from one to three months.(see case of Wong Hoi Len v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGHC 146). In Ong Eng Chong v PP (Magistrates Appeal No 147 of 2004), the accused who had pleaded guilty to punching and kicking the victim over a parking incident was sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment upon an appeal. The court was of the view that taking all the circumstances of this case into consideration, an appropriate sentence would be 3 weeks imprisonment. The accused is appealing against the conviction and sentence.

www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/

7/7