PP v Cheng Tai Peng [2012] SGDC 104

Public Prosecutor v Cheng Tai Peng[2012] SGDC 104

Suit No :MCN No. 130 of 2011

Decision Date :30 March 2012

Court :District Court

Coram :Roy Grenville Neighbour

Counsel :Davyd Chong, Deputy Public Prosecutor for the Public Prosecutor; Appellant in Person

30 March 2012

District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour:

1 The appellant is the accused. The appellant claimed trial to a charge of voluntary causing hurt to one Chua

Teck Seng (“the victim”). On 3 April ’10 at about 2.40 p.m., the appellant slapped and punched the victim in the

face and also kicked him whilst travelling on board a MRT train proceeding from Bukit Batok MRT railway station to

Choa Chu Kang MRT station.

2 At the conclusion of the trial the appellant was found guilty and convicted on the charge. Dissatisfied with the

conviction the appellant lodged this appeal.

FACTS

3 At the trial the prosecution adduced evidence from the victim who stated that on 3 April ’10 sometime past

2.00 pm., he took the SMRT train at Chinatown. Thereafter, he changed trains at Jurong East intending to alight at

Choa Chu Kang station. Whilst on the train bound for Choa Chu Kang, the victim stood in front of a seated female

passenger. When the train was about to arrive at Bukit Gombak, the female passenger, from her body language,

gave the impression to the victim and the appellant that she was going to vacate her seat. At this juncture, the

appellant who was standing beside the victim pushed the victim aside with the obvious intention of occupying the

seat the moment the female passenger got up to leave. Another passenger, Lim Joo Hee (“Lim”) seated opposite

testified that he saw the appellant and the victim standing beside each other and there was body contact between

them. He heard the victim say to the appellant “you should excuse me when you see me moving forward to find a

seat.” The victim was also heard to remark “Young man, how can you push an old man like that”, the appellant

retorted “So what if you are an old man?” Does an old man have a golden tablet?”. The victim immediately

understood the appellant’s cultural reference to the golden tablet to mean that those given the tablet by the

Emperor during the period of the dynasties in China, are protected. In present day context, the victim understood

the reference to “the golden tablet” to mean that he should be accorded respect because of his age.

4 Then, quite suddenly and forcefully, the appellant slapped the victim on the face over the left ear. The

appellant also hit the victim on the eye and nose. When another passenger held the appellant to prevent the

appellant from further assaulting the victim, the appellant was heard to say “You had better let go, otherwise I

would hit you too”. Immediately the victim backed away from the appellant in fear of being hit again. The appellant

then advanced forward threatening to assault the victim. According to the victim, the appellant looked very fierce.

The victim was very frightened. When he victim retreated to another part of the railway carriage, the appellant

went and occupied the seat the female passenger vacated.

5 Shortly, when the appellant noticed the victim looking at him the appellant retorted “You still want?”

Thereupon, the appellant left his seat, went up to the victim and began assaulting the victim again by kicking and

punching him.

6 This incident was also witnessed by Grace Yaw Chue Yan (“Grace”) a 2nd year National University of

LawNet – Legal Research http://www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPr...

1 of 5 4/5/2012 10:20 AM

Singapore (“NUS”) undergraduate. Grace testified that she saw the appellant hitting the victim rather mercilessly

while the victim in all his actions, tried to defend himself. Of this she had no doubt. She saw the appellant punching

the victim on the face. She also saw a young man intervene to stop the appellant assaulting the victim. Thereafter,

Grace saw the appellant turn his attention to the victim once again. She saw the appellant again raining blows on

the victim and also kicking the victim heartlessly. When she realized that other commuters in the train were doing

nothing to stop the appellant’s attack on the victim, she pressed the emergency stop button on the train to alert

SMRT staff of the incident.

7 Besides, Grace witnessing the incident, Lim also saw the appellant assaulting the victim on the train. He too,

saw the appellant first slap the victim on the cheek before punching the victim’s face. He also saw a young man

intervene to stop the appellant from further assaulting the victim. After an exchange of words with the appellant,

the young man, who was in a group, left the train when it stopped at Bukit Gombak. Lim further testified that when

the train proceeded to Choa Chu Kang MRT station, he saw the appellant go toward the victim and assault the

victim again by punching the victim several times. However, he could not recall whether or not the appellant kicked

the victim. He stated that the appellant was clearly the aggressor in the incident.

8 Consequently, when the train was travelling to Choa Chu Kang MRT Station, Station Manager Tan Swee Hua

(“Station Manager Tan”) was informed that the emergency communication button was activated on the approaching

southbound train. Together with two of his officers he immediately went to the platform to investigate. Upon

boarding the train, several passengers identified the victim to him as the old man who was assualted by the

appellant. Immediately, the victim and the appellant were escorted out of the train. Station Manager Tan noticed

that the victim’s eyes were red. The victim and the appellant were separated and escorted from the platform to

MRT offices below. While escorting the appellant, Station Manager Tan said that the appellant behaved aggressively

towards him. The appellant shouted vulgarities at him and even raised his hand to hit him. When Station Manager

Tan told the appellant “You want to hit me?” the appellant quickly retorted that he was not so stupid to do so with

all the security cameras around.

9 It was at this juncture that off duty Police Corporal Iskhairy Bin Haron (“Cpl Iskhairy”) heard a commotion

whilst walking along the platform. He volunteered to assist when saw the appellant shouting, gesticulating and

behaving aggressively to Station Manager Tan. Cpl Iskhairy noticed, at that juncture, that the victim was injured on

the face. The victim was bleeding from the nose, had redness in the eyes and his cheek was swollen. Subsequently,

other SMRT staff came and attended to the victim and to the appellant. While waiting for the police to arrive, Cpl

Iskhairy obtained the appellant’s and the victim’s personal particulars. After giving his personal particulars, the

appellant left the scene before the arrival of police officers.

10 Consequently, the victim was sent to the National University Hospital (“NUH”) for a medical examination.

There, Dr Benjamin Goh (“Dr Goh”) medically examined the victim. Dr Goh stated that initially he found no

bleeding in the anterior chamber of the victim’s left eye, however, when the victim was subsequently reviewed by

the Ophthalmologist, some retinal bleeding was observed. In his examination of the victim, Dr Goh found a

haematoma over the cartilaginous portion of the victim’s left ear with no open wound. An otoscopic examination of

the ear however, revealed that the victim’s left ear drum was perforated. Dr Goh also noted that there were

abrasions over the nose but no significant tenderness or septal haematoma. Dr Goh opined that all these injuries

could have been caused by slaps or punches to the left side of the victim’s face.

11 At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, I was satisfied that the prosecution had proved a prima facie case

in respect of the charge against the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was called upon for his defence to the

charge. The appellant elected to give evidence from the witness box.

DEFENCE

12 The appellant stated that on 3 Apr ’10 at about 2.30 pm he boarded the SMRT train. Upon entering the

carriage, he stood holding onto the handrails. When the train was at Bukit Gombak MRT Station he looked at the

reflection carriage’s window to see if there was a vacant seat or if passengers were indicating that they were about


2 of 5 4/5/2012 10:20 AM

to leave their seats. When the train came to a stop he noticed the victim standing in the same carriage but some

distance away from him. After the train left Bukit Gombak for Choa Chu Kang, he noticed a lady move forward in

her seat giving him the impression that she was going to vacate her seat. He then turned 180 degrees, took a step

forward and stood and facing the female passenger. When the female passenger vacated her seat and stood up,

the appellant took a small step forward indicating that he would like to occupy the vacated seat. At this juncture,

the victim’s right shoulder hit him hard resulting in him taking a step backwards. The appellant then moved

forward and with his left shoulder hit the victim’s right shoulder with minimum force. Responding, the victim used

his shoulder and arms to push him away. The appellant stood his ground and resisted. The victim told him in the

Hokkien dialect “You should let the seats to an old man”. The appellant asked “Old man has a right to be funny or

cheeky?” The appellant stated that the victim was bold. The he thought “How old is old?”. He estimated that the

victim to be in his 40’s. The victim had no problem walking. He had no walking stick. He had a muscular build.

13 The appellant said he was annoyed that the victim used his right shoulder to push him aside. The victim used

his whole body and banged hard into him, resulting in the appellant having to lean backwards. Upon using

minimum force the appellant said he pushed both the victim’s shoulders away resulting in the victim taking a step

backwards. The victim retaliated by throwing a punch at his face and he managed to avoid the blow. The appellant

said that the victim’s punch only brushed the tip of his nose. He believed that the victim knew how to fight. The

appellant explained that he was wearing specatacles and had the victim’s punch landed on his face it could have

resulted in him suffering a bleeding or broken nose. He decided to slap the victim on the left side of the face hoping

that the victim will back off. However, when the victim swung another punch at his nose, he again avoided the blow

by stepping backwards and slapped the victim again on the left side of his face. The victim did not back off and

swung a third punch that again brushed the tip of his nose. The appellant said he returned with another slap to the

left side of the victim’s face. By this time, the other passengers in the carriage moved away from them. The victim

too, withdrew to where he originally stood in the carriage. As the female passenger had vacated her seat, the

appellant occupied it.

14 Shortly, the victim said about five times in Hokkien “Hitting old man”. This irritated the appellant and he

retorted “Are you looking for trouble?” At this juncture, the victim uttered a vulgarity in Hokkien. Stunned by what

the victim had said, he got up and approached the victim.

15 Whilst approaching the victim, a young man grabbed hold of both his arms at the elbows and told him not to

pursue the matter further. In response the appellant asked if he was a police officer and if he was, to show him

documents otherwise, he ought to let go of his arms. When the young man did not respond, he raised his arm as if

to hit the young man. He also raised his right leg. The appellant said he did this to scare the young man into letting

him go. The appellant said he had no intention to hit the young man. In response to the appellant’s actions, the

young man jumped back.

16 Then he walked to the victim inquiring why he had to utter a vulgarity involving his parents. When he was

approximately 4 steps away from the victim, the victim stepped forward and very quickly and suddenly threw a

punch at him. He managed to avoid the blow by leaning backwards. The blow once again brushed the tip of his

nose. The appellant went forward and slapped the victim twice on the face. After the second slap the victim went

down into a squatting position and showed him his senior citizen’s pass. After warning the victim not to involve his

parents in the argument, the appellant returned to his seat.

17 When the train stopped at Choa Chu Kang MRT Station, the Station manager approached him. He explained

his side of the story and said that he was assaulted by the victim. Whilst being escorted, he passed by Lim who told

him to watch out and that he will testify and be a witness for the victim. Subsequently, when Cpl Iskhairy came

asked for his personal particulars he provided them. As he had an appointment, he decided not to wait for the

arrival of the police and left after informing Station Manager Tan. Subsequently, he was contacted Inspector Kelvin

Chew in connection with the incident.

CONVICTION


3 of 5 4/5/2012 10:20 AM

18 Having considered the evidence adduced at the trial, I accept that before the incident the victim and the

appellant were standing beside each other on the train waiting to occupy a seat that was to be vacated by a female

passenger. The appellant claimed that the incident was sparked off by the victim bumping into him. The victim

stated that the appellant used his body to push him aside to occupy the seat. There is no dispute that there was

body contact between the victim and the appellant. Lim heard the victim say to appellant “you should excuse me

when you see me moving forward to find a seat.” It is apparent that the appellant either obstructed the victim or

bumped into him intending to push him aside so that he could move ahead and occupy the seat when both of them

noticed the female move to vacate her seat. The appellant admitted that he was looking at the reflection in the

window panes of the carriage to ascertain whether any of the occupied seats would be vacated by passengers

leaving the train. The victim said that he was standing in front of the female passenger who was about to alight the

train. The appellant said he had his back to the female passenger. When he noticed her movements indicating an

intention to vacate her seat, he turned 180 degrees to face her and took a step forward. It was obvious from the

appellant’s conduct that he was going to rush for the seat the moment it was vacated and was unwilling to offer it

to the victim.

19 The victim is a senior citizen and should be accorded the courtesy to occupy a seat if it was vacant or at least

offered a seat on the train by a younger passenger. Even if the victim had bumped into the appellant in the first

instance, it was clearly accidental with no intention to annoy. Had the appellant been forgiving, the incident would

not have occurred. However, the appellant could not let it pass and being annoyed by the victim’s actions,

retaliated by using his shoulder to hit the victim’s shoulder and it led to the incident escalating in violence. The

appellant’s response by first slapping, and then punching and kicking the victim is a response clearly out of

proportion to the victim’s initial bump to his shoulder. Thus, I disbelieve the appellant’s account that whilst annoyed

and in an agitated state he managed to control himself to the extent that he used only “minimal force” to bump the

victim back and also push him away.

20 I also disbelieve the appellant’s description of the victim to be a younger, fitter and muscular person. This

was not proved when he questioned Kelvin Chew, Cpl Iskhairy and Andy Lee Quek Joo. All three witnesses testified

that the victim looked the same as he was at the time of the incident except that he had aged a little. The victim

clearly did not fit the appellant’s description of him. It was apparent that the appellant by describing the victim to

be a younger fitter more muscular person was doing so in order to justify his action in rushing for the seat and his

subsequent callous response in assaulting the victim.

21 From the accounts provided by Grace and Lim, it was blatantly apparent that the appellant was the aggressor

in the incident. According to Grace who was traumatized by the incident, the appellant was “mercilessly raining

blows on the victim”. According to her, the appellant was “intimidating, heartless and extremely brutal”. She

described the victim as “battered at the time of the incident”. This was also borne out by Lim who stated that the

appellant “went to really wallop” the victim. Even when he was prevented by a young male passenger from doing

further harm to the victim, the appellant threatened him to assault the said passenger if he did not let him go. I

also disbelieve the appellant’s account that in his aggressive and agitated state he only raised his fist and his right

leg and did not assault the young male passenger.

22 I also disbelieve the appellant’s account that the victim had hurled a Hokkien vulgarity at the appellant. None

of the other witnesses heard the victim uttering vulgarities at the appellant. The victim testified that when he

looked at the appellant who caught him looking, retorted “You still want?”. The appellant’s contention that the

victim had hurled a vulgarity at him is clearly to justify him leaving his seat and going up to the victim to assault

him a second time.

23 The appellant was observed by Grace, Lim and the victim to be fierce, aggressive and intimidating. When the

appellant retorted “You still want?” before proceeding to the victim and assaulting him a second time with punches

and kicks, this retort clearly reflects his defiant, brutish and indifferent behavior.

24 I have no reason to doubt the testimonies of Grace, Lim and that of the victim with regard to the incident.

Grace and Lim are independent witnesses who came forth to testify as civic minded individuals. I find nothing in


4 of 5 4/5/2012 10:20 AM

their evidence to conclude that they have fabricated a case against the appellant. I disbelieve the appellant’s claim

that he was not the aggressor in the fight and that he did not kick or punch the victim in the attack. He was clearly

seen by Grace slapping, kicking and punching the victim. Lim too, saw the appellant slapping and punching the

victim. It is obvious that the appellant by deliberately stating that he only slapped the victim on the face is diluting

the severity of his attack on the victim.

25 It is apparent too, that the victim was utterly surprised and taken aback by the suddenness of the appellant’s

assault and all he could do in the circumstances was to defend himself and block the appellant’s slaps in the first

instance and subsequent punches and kicks. The assault was to a vital part of the human body namely, the victim’s

head. As a result of the assault the victim suffered several injuries namely, a perforated ear drum, subsequent

retinal bleeding and abrasions over the nose. According to the medical evidence provided by Dr Benjamin Goh, all

these injuries are consistent with injuries caused by punches and slaps to the victim’s face. It is noteworthy too that

in the assault, the appellant was not hurt at all.

26 Accordingly, I disbelieve the appellant’s account of the incident. There is no doubt in my mind that the

appellant was the aggressor in the incident and had intentionally caused the injuries to the victim. Furthermore, he

admitted in his defence that he did cause hurt to the victim by slapping him on the face. In view of all the evidence

adduced, I am amply satisfied that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the charge against the

appellant. Accordingly, I disbelieved the appellant’s defence. The appellant is found guilty and is convicted on the

charge.


5 of 5 4/5/2012 10:20 AM

Documents

PP v Cheng Tai Peng [2012] SGDC 104