PP v Nurashikin: Theft Sentencing Appeal under Penal Code s 380 & Witness Credibility
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the decision of the district judge to acquit Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan on a charge of theft under Section 380 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the prosecution witness and in concluding that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court convicted Nurashikin and sentenced her to two weeks' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against acquittal for theft. The High Court found the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility and drawing inferences, convicting the respondent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Hui Choon Kuen |
| Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan | Respondent | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hui Choon Kuen | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The respondent was charged with theft of an eyebrow pencil and eyeliner from a store.
- A sales assistant (PW 2) testified she saw the respondent select the items but did not see her put them back.
- The respondent claimed she placed the items back and did not know how they ended up in her bag.
- The items were found in a paper bag the respondent was carrying when she left the store.
- The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution witness not credible.
- The prosecution appealed, arguing the judge erred in assessing witness credibility and the burden of proof.
- The respondent had a prior conviction under s 381 of the Penal Code and was on probation at the time of the offence.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan, MA No 15 of 2002, [2002] SGHC 242
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Theft occurred at ‘Chamelon’ store | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Witness Credibility
- Outcome: The High Court found that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the prosecution witness.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Demeanor in court
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 1 SLR 205
- [2000] 3 SLR 677
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The High Court found that the trial judge erred in concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Circumstantial evidence
- Adverse inference
- Related Cases:
- [1966] 2 MLJ 95
- [1994] 2 SLR 385
- [1997] 1 SLR 723
- [1947] 2 All ER 372
- [1949] 15 MLJ 150
- [1963] 1 MLJ 288
- [1991] 3 MLJ 423
- [2000] 2 SLR 789
- Appropriate Sentence
- Outcome: The High Court sentenced the respondent to two weeks’ imprisonment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR 552
- [1953] MLJ 86
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jimina Jacee d/o CD Athananasius v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that due weight should be accorded to the trial judge’s assessment of the veracity or credibility of the witness. |
| Loganatha Venkatesan & Ors v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 677 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an impeachment of the witness’s credit does not automatically lead to a total rejection of his evidence. |
| Soh Yang Tick v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 42 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn findings of fact made by a trial judge unless they can be shown to be plainly wrong or reached against the weight of the evidence. |
| Ang Sunny v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1966] 2 MLJ 95 | Malaysia | Cited for the test that when the prosecution is relying entirely on circumstantial evidence, the effect of all such evidence must lead the court 'inevitable and inexorably' to one conclusion only: that it is the accused who committed the offence. |
| PP v Oh Laye Koh | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 385 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the same principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to cases where the prosecution evidence is wholly circumstantial as it does to those where direct evidence is adduced. |
| Nadasan Chandra Secharan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 723 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in applying the principle of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court is concerned with whether there is any other reasonably possible conclusion other than that the accused had committed the offence and is not concerned with 'fanciful possibilities'. |
| Miller v Minister of Pensions | High Court | Yes | [1947] 2 All ER 372 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Goh Ah Yew v PP | High Court | Yes | [1949] 15 MLJ 150 | Malaysia | Cited for the general rule that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witness. |
| Abu Bakar v R | High Court | Yes | [1963] 1 MLJ 288 | Malaysia | Cited for the general rule that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witness. |
| Choo Chang Teik & Anor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 423 | Malaysia | Cited for the qualification to the general rule that if the prosecution has made out a complete case against the defendant and yet the defence has failed to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the prosecution’s case, Illustration (g) to s 116 of the Evidence Act then allows the court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. |
| Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 789 | Singapore | Cited for the qualification to the general rule that if the prosecution has made out a complete case against the defendant and yet the defence has failed to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the prosecution’s case, Illustration (g) to s 116 of the Evidence Act then allows the court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. |
| PP v Lee Soon Lee Vincent | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 552 | Singapore | Cited to determine that the phrase ‘shall be liable’ (as opposed to ‘shall be punished’) contained no obligation or mandatory connotation. |
| Ng Chwee Puan v R | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1953] MLJ 86 | Malaysia | Cited to determine that the phrase ‘shall be liable’ (as opposed to ‘shall be punished’) contained no obligation or mandatory connotation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 380 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 156 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116 illustration (g) | Singapore |
| Probation of Offenders Act, Cap 252, s 5(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Theft
- Witness credibility
- Circumstantial evidence
- Burden of proof
- Adverse inference
- Reasonable doubt
- Sentencing
- Probation
15.2 Keywords
- Theft
- Witness credibility
- Circumstantial evidence
- Adverse inference
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Law
- Sentencing