PP v Saeng-Un Udom: Murder Conviction for Fatal Head Injuries Inflicted with Metal Rod during Quarrel

In Public Prosecutor v Saeng-Un Udom, the High Court of Singapore convicted Saeng-Un Udom, a Thai national, of murder under Section 300(a) of the Penal Code for causing the death of Weerasak Suebban. The incident occurred after a quarrel where Udom struck Suebban on the head with a metal rod. Despite conflicting forensic evidence, the court found Udom's confession and the circumstances of the attack sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his conviction and sentencing to death.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Saeng-Un Udom was convicted of murder for fatally striking Weerasak Suebban with a metal rod during a quarrel. The High Court found Udom guilty under Section 300(a) of the Penal Code.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Hamidul Haq of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Sandra Tsao of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Saeng-Un UdomDefendantIndividualConvicted of MurderLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hamidul HaqDeputy Public Prosecutors
Sandra TsaoDeputy Public Prosecutors
James MasihJames Masih & Co
Ramli SalehkonJames Masih & Co

4. Facts

  1. Accused and deceased quarreled after a drinking session.
  2. The deceased smashed two glass bottles and threatened the accused with a knife.
  3. Accused confessed in his Section 121 statement to hitting the deceased with a metal rod.
  4. The deceased died from a severe open head injury.
  5. An iron rod was retrieved from the slipway basin based on the accused's information.
  6. The pathologist opined that the lacerations were caused by a relatively heavy instrument with a sharp cutting edge.
  7. The accused confessed on oath that he intended to kill the deceased.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Saeng-Un Udom, CC 75/2000, [2001] SGHC 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Quarrel broke out between the deceased and the accused.
Deceased was found dead.
Accused gave Section 122(6) statement.
Accused gave Section 121 statement.
Iron rod retrieved from the bottom of the slipway basin.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Causation of Death
    • Outcome: The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had used the heavy iron rod to inflict the injuries found on the deceased’s head with the intention of killing him.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inconsistency between confession and forensic evidence
      • Type of weapon used
  2. Intention to Cause Death
    • Outcome: The court determined that the accused acted with the intention to cause death.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction for Murder
  2. Death Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Haw Tua TauUnknownYes[1981] 2 MLJ 49UnknownCited for the test applied to determine if there was a prima facie case that the accused was the assailant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 300 (a) of the Penal CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Murder
  • Section 300(a) Penal Code
  • Metal Rod
  • Head Injury
  • Confession
  • Intention
  • Causation
  • Forensic Evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • Murder
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • High Court
  • Saeng-Un Udom
  • Weerasak Suebban
  • Penal Code
  • Death Sentence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Murder95
Criminal Law90
Penal Code80
Evidence70
Criminal Procedure60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Homicide