Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor: Attempted Murder Conviction After Disputed Forensic Evidence

In Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Saeng-Un Udom, a Thai national, against his conviction for murder. Udom was initially convicted of murdering a fellow Thai worker. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the murder conviction, and instead convicted Udom of attempted murder, sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment. The decision turned on the unrebutted evidence of the prosecution's own forensic expert, which raised reasonable doubt that Udom's actions caused the victim's death.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed, conviction for murder set aside, and convicted of attempted murder.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Saeng-Un Udom was initially convicted of murder, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision due to conflicting forensic evidence, convicting him of attempted murder.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyLostLost
Bala Reddy of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Edwin San of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Saeng-Un UdomAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Bala ReddyDeputy Public Prosecutors
Edwin SanDeputy Public Prosecutors
James MasihJames Masih & Co
Ramli SalehkonRamli & Co

4. Facts

  1. Udom and Suebban quarreled after Udom boasted about being the best welder.
  2. Suebban smashed two glass bottles and threatened Udom with a knife.
  3. Udom retrieved a metal cutting gas torch and cut a metal rod.
  4. Udom hit Suebban three times with the metal rod.
  5. Suebban was found dead with severe head injuries.
  6. Dr. Lau, the forensic pathologist, concluded the injuries were inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon.
  7. Udom admitted to intending to kill Suebban.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor, CA 3/2000, [2001] SGCA 39

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Udom, Suebban, and friends had a drinking session.
A quarrel broke out between Udom and Suebban.
Udom hit Suebban with a metal rod.
Suebban was found dead.
The metal rod was retrieved from the slipway basin.
Udom told Chai he had used a metal pipe to hit someone.
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Causation in Murder
    • Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions caused the death of the deceased.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disputed forensic evidence
      • Rejection of expert testimony
  2. Admissibility and Weight of Expert Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the trial judge was not entitled to reject the expert's opinion and substitute it with one of his own, as the matter was clearly outside the learning of the court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Rejection of expert opinion by trial judge
      • Conflicting expert testimony
    • Related Cases:
      • (1978) 66 Cr App R 31
      • [1939] MLJ 226
      • Re Choo Eng Choon, decd (1908) 12 SSLR 120
      • [1997] 1 SLR 197
      • [1987] SLR 107
  3. Attempt to Commit Murder
    • Outcome: The court convicted the appellant of attempted murder, finding that his actions and intent were sufficient to sustain the conviction.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Acquittal
  2. Appeal against conviction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder
  • Attempted Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Rodney William BaileyEnglish Court of Criminal AppealYes(1978) 66 Cr App R 31EnglandCited for the principle that a jury or judge must act on evidence, and if there is no evidence to dispute medical evidence, then it must be accepted.
Official Administrator Federated Malay States v State of SelangorN/AYes[1939] MLJ 226MalaysiaCited for the principle that the court may agree with the expert if there is no definite expert evidence to the contrary.
Re Choo Eng Choon, decdN/AYesRe Choo Eng Choon, decd (1908) 12 SSLR 120SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must not blindly accept expert evidence merely because there is no definite opinion to the contrary.
Muhammad Jefrry bin Safii v PPN/AYes[1997] 1 SLR 197SingaporeCited for the principle that the court's role is restricted to electing or choosing between conflicting expert evidence or accepting or rejecting the proffered expert evidence, though none else is offered.
Sek Kim Wah v PPN/AYes[1987] SLR 107SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is not obliged to accept expert evidence by reason only that it is unchallenged.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1985 ed)Singapore
s 300 of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 302 of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 307 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 ed)Singapore
s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 121(1) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forensic evidence
  • Expert testimony
  • Causation
  • Mens rea
  • Actus reus
  • Reasonable doubt
  • Diminished responsibility

15.2 Keywords

  • Murder
  • Attempted murder
  • Forensic evidence
  • Expert witness
  • Causation
  • Singapore Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law95
Murder90
Attempt to Murder90
Criminal Procedure70
Sentencing60
Evidence50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Forensic Science
  • Expert Evidence