PP v Eddy Syahputra [2012] SGDC 214

7/20/12 LawNet – Legal Research

1/7www.lawnet.com.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subaction=lrLp2ToolsShowPrint&docid=http://plwblg22:9990/…

Public Prosecutor v Eddy Syahputra [2012] SGDC 214

Suit No :MCN 667 of 2011

Decision Date :25 June 2012

Court :District Court

Coram :Liew Thiam Leng

Counsel :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 Prosecution’s Case

2 On 24th 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 accused’s 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 victim’s 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 accused’s 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 victim’s 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 accused’s mother in law also alighted from the vehicle and pleaded with the accused not

to beat her son in law. In the process, the victim’s mother in law fell on the floor but she got up

immediately. The victim’s 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 prosecution’s 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



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 accused’s 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 accused’s car.

The evidence of the victim PW2 Lim Hwee Shing

5 The victim’s 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 accused’s car which was in

front was having difficulties driving past the ramp at basement 2 and while waiting for the accused’s

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 accused’s 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 accused’s 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 latter’s 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 accused’s 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 accused’s sweat and saliva spitting on his whole face. Once the victim felt that the accused’s

saliva was coming to his mouth, he was angry and asked the accused whether he knew that his saliva

was touching his (victim’s) 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 accused’s 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

victim’s 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 victim’s 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

accused’s 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 victim’s wife then called the police. While the victim was waiting for the police to arrive, the

accused came to the victim’s car and asked him why don’t 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 victim’s 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 victim PW2’s evidence

6 The victim’s 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 victim’s car



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 victim’s 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 victim’s car and the accused’s

car. PW7 could see the accused alighting from his car and approaching the victim’s 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 victim’s evidence that he had put up his hands to prevent the accused from coming closer

towards him as he could feel the accused’s 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

victim’s 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 victim’s wife PW1 and his mother in law PW6 also corroborated the victim’s evidence that the

accused had punched the victim and the latter did not hit the victim at all. In fact, PW6 who was the

victim’s 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 victim’s 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 victim’s 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 victim’s 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 victim’s 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



statement given to the police. In his statement (Exhibit P14 at the 9th 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, 6th 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 victim’s mother in law at that time. The court find this evidence

unacceptable as the victim’s 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 victim’s 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 DW2’s 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 latter’s face but in

court he said that he did not see this as the victim’s 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 24th October,

2010 but the statement was recorded on 14th 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 DW2’s 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 accused’s brother and

would be an interested witness whereas the independent witness PW7 does not know the victim or



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 accused’s wife. There are discrepancies in the witness’ evidence. In court she had

stated that when the accused went towards the victim’s 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

victim’s 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 victim’s 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 accused’s 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 accused’s 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 victim’s car and he could see what was going on between the accused and the

victim.

DW4 Stella Yuli’s evidence

14 DW4 is the sister in law of the accused. Her evidence is that the victim’s car was horning from

behind. She saw the accused approaching the victim’s 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, 3rd 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 accused’s 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 prosecution’s

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



:

“..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 victim’s 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 accused’s shouts. In fact, after the

victim was punched and had fallen onto the ground, the victim’s 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 accused’s

punch on the victim’s 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 accused’s

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 prosecution’s address on sentence. The prosecution

submitted that the accused is the aggressor in this case and had initiated the action. He had blocked

the victim’s 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 victim’s 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 victim’s family members as well as an independent witness who

was driving his car behind the victim’s 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 victim’s car at the time



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.

Documents

PP v Eddy Syahputra [2012] SGDC 214