Loganatha Venkatesan v PP: Conspiracy to Commit Murder & Admissibility of Police Statements
In Loganatha Venkatesan and Others v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the conviction of Loganatha Venkatesan, Chandran s/o Rajagopal, and Julaiha Begum for conspiracy to commit the murder of Madavamani s/o Thuraisamy Thangavelu. The court examined the admissibility of police statements, the credibility of witnesses, and the evidence supporting the existence of a conspiracy. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Loganatha Venkatesan appeals conviction for conspiracy to murder. The court examines witness credibility, admissibility of police statements, and upholds the conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Anandan Bala of Deputy Public Prosecutor Peter Koy of Deputy Public Prosecutor Bala Reddy of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Loganatha Venkatesan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chandran s/o Rajagopal | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Julaiha Begum | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anandan Bala | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Peter Koy | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Bala Reddy | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| N Kanagavijayan | K Krishna & Partners |
| Luke Lee | Luke Lee & Co |
| Nicholas Cheong | Lim Soo Peng & Co |
| NK Rajah | Rajah Velu & Co |
| R Thrumurgan | Palakrishnan & Partners |
| Palakrishnan | Palakrishnan & Partners |
4. Facts
- Maniam was battered to death near his residence on 21 April 1999.
- Julaiha was charged with abetting Venkatesan and Chandran in the murder of her husband, Maniam.
- Ravichandran testified that Julaiha instructed him to 'finish off' Maniam and offered payment.
- Venkatesan and Chandran admitted to being at the scene but denied participating in the attack.
- Fairos identified Venkatesan and Chandran as the assailants.
- Julaiha attempted to create a false alibi for Venkatesan.
- Julaiha raised a loan of $7,500 and handed the money to Venkatesan, who paid $6,000 to Chandran.
5. Formal Citations
- Loganatha Venkatesan and Others v Public Prosecutor, CA 6/2000, [2000] SGCA 42
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Julaiha and Abdul Kareem divorced. | |
| Maniam and Julaiha married. | |
| Maniam retired from the police force. | |
| Negotiation for settlement between Maniam and Julaiha conducted at John Abraham's office. | |
| Julaiha first came to know Venkatesan. | |
| Maniam and his step-daughters saw Julaiha and Venkatesan walking hand-in-hand. | |
| Julaiha moved out of the house. | |
| Venkatesan's private summons against Maniam and the two sisters was heard. | |
| Julaiha made a promissory note of $50,000 in favour of Venkatesan. | |
| Tay Yong Kwang JC ordered the property to be sold. | |
| Venkatesan and Chandran approached Ravichandran about their plan. | |
| Venkatesan, Chandran and Ravichandran met Julaiha. | |
| First attempt on Maniam's life. | |
| Ravichandran met Venkatesan and Chandran on his way to VJ Velu's home. | |
| Venkatesan, Chandran, Mani and Ravichandran checked if Maniam was at home. | |
| Ravichandran stole $3,000 from Chandran's wallet. | |
| Ravichandran left for Madras. | |
| Maniam was attacked and killed. | |
| Summons was scheduled to be heard. | |
| Identification parades held. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Accused's Police Statements
- Outcome: The court clarified the procedure for using an accused's police statements, holding that s 122(5) of the CPC allows their admissibility without needing court permission.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of statements without court permission
- Voluntariness of statements
- Related Cases:
- [1948] MLJ 57
- [1992] 1 SLR 850
- [1998] 2 SLR 592
- Credibility of Witnesses
- Outcome: The court found that the trial judge properly considered the discrepancies in the eyewitnesses' testimonies and that the accomplice's evidence was reliable and corroborated.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Discrepancies in eyewitness testimony
- Treatment of accomplice evidence
- Impeachment of witness credibility
- Related Cases:
- [1954] AC 378
- [1996] 1 SLR 510
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- Existence of Conspiracy to Commit Murder
- Outcome: The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding of a conspiracy between Julaiha, Venkatesan, and Chandran to kill Maniam.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Reversal of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Conspiracy to Commit Murder
- Abetment of Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Homicide
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davies v DPP | House of Lords | Yes | [1954] AC 378 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of an accomplice. |
| Chua Keem Leong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 510 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accomplice's evidence may be treated with caution. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accomplice's evidence can be accepted if reliable. |
| Muthusamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [1948] MLJ 57 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the procedure for impeaching a witness's credit using prior inconsistent statements. |
| Somwang Phatthanasaeng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited regarding the timing of a ruling on the impeachment of a witness's credit. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited regarding the ruling on the impeachment of credit of a witness. |
| PP v Somwang Phatthanasaeng | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 138 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty of the court to evaluate the evidence in its entirety to determine which aspect to believe. |
| Dato Moktar bin Hashim & Anor v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1983] 2 MLJ 232 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the assessment of a witness's credit as a whole. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 122(5) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) s 116 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) s 147 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) s 157 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conspiracy
- Accomplice
- Eyewitness
- Impeachment of credit
- Police statement
- Abetment
- Murder
- Evidence
- Credibility
- Inconsistent statements
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Murder
- Conspiracy
- Evidence
- Witness
- Statement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 85 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 80 |
| Penal Code | 70 |
| Appeal | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure