PP v K S: Statutory Rape & Outraging Modesty of Step-Daughter
In Public Prosecutor v K S, the High Court of Singapore heard the case against K S, who was charged with multiple counts of raping and outraging the modesty of his step-daughter between 1995 and 2002. The court convicted K S on four charges (charges A1, A2, A3 and A5) and acquitted him of one charge (charge A4). He was sentenced to a total of 24 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted on four charges and acquitted on one charge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
K S was convicted of raping and outraging the modesty of his underaged step-daughter. He was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Conviction on four charges | Won | Eddy Tham, Francis Ng |
| K S | Defendant | Individual | Acquittal on one charge | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eddy Tham | Public Prosecutor |
| Francis Ng | Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The accused was charged with raping and outraging the modesty of his step-daughter on multiple occasions between 1995 and 2002.
- The victim was the step-daughter of the accused, and the offences occurred when she was between 7 and 14 years old.
- The victim disclosed the assaults to her mother in March 2002, leading to a police report.
- Medical examination of the victim revealed old tears in her hymenal ring, consistent with penile penetration.
- The accused claimed the allegations were false and that he never committed the offences.
- The accused admitted to reading the victim's diary where she wrote that he tried to rape her.
- The accused had previous convictions for criminal breach of trust and cheating.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v K S, CC 53/2002, [2003] SGHC 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused married the victim’s mother. | |
| Victim came to Singapore to stay with her mother. | |
| Fifth charge allegedly committed. | |
| Fourth charge allegedly committed. | |
| Family moved to a flat at REDACTED Road. | |
| Accused convicted of criminal breach of trust and cheating. | |
| Third charge allegedly committed between October and November 2001. | |
| Second charge allegedly committed. | |
| First charge allegedly committed sometime between the first and second week of February 2002. | |
| Victim disclosed the sexual assaults to her mother. | |
| Victim and her mother lodged a police report. | |
| Accused arrested. | |
| Medical examination of the victim by Dr Roland Chieng. | |
| Dr Mohd Emran bin Mamat examined the accused at the Changi Prison Hospital. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Rape
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of rape on three charges (A1, A2, A3).
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Consent
- Penetration
- Age of victim
- Outraging Modesty
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of outraging modesty on one charge (A5) but acquitted him on another (A4).
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Criminal force
- Intention to outrage modesty
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court considered the principles relating to corroboration of a victim's testimony, especially in cases involving sexual offences and child witnesses. The court also considered the purpose and relevance of the first information report.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Corroboration of victim's testimony
- Evidence of child witness
- First information report
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal prosecution
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Rape
- Outraging Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Din v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | (1964) 30 MLJ 300 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the desirability for corroboration of the evidence of a prosecutrix in rape and cases involving sexual offences springs not from the nature of the witness but from the very nature of the offence. |
| Chiu Nang Hong v Public Prosecutor | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | (1965) 31 MLJ 40 | Federation of Malaya | Cited for the principle that the rule requiring corroboration is one of prudence and practice rather than law. |
| Chao Chong v Public Prosecutor | Federation of Malaya Court of Appeal | Yes | (1960) 26 MLJ 238 | Malaysia | Cited for the legal principle which exhorts that the evidence of a child must be regarded with suspicion. |
| Mohamed Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v The King | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1946 PC 3 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that it is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a rule of prudence and not of law. |
| State of Kerala v K Govindan | High Court of Kerala | Yes | (1969) Cr LJ 818 | India | Cited for the principle that there is no rule of law or of practice which makes it obligatory that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated before a conviction for rape could be entered. |
| Tang Kin Seng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no legal requirement that a judge must warn himself expressly of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a case involving sexual offences. |
| DPP v Kilbourne | House of Lords | Yes | [1973] AC 729 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that corroboration is when one is doubtful whether or not to believe a particular statement one naturally looks to see whether it fits in with other statements or circumstances relating to the particular matter. |
| Kwan Peng Hong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for defining the phrase ‘usually compelling’ in relation to the evidence of a complainant in a sexual offence case. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 278 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no special rule requiring a trial judge to direct himself as to the dangers of convicting without corroboration where the only evidence is that of a child witness. |
| Tham Kai Yau & Ors v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1977] 1 MLJ 174 | Malaysia | Cited for the consideration that a formal warning on the issue of corroboration need not be issued to the jury if they were advised to pay particular attention to or to scrutinise with special care the evidence of young children, explaining the tendencies of such children to invent and distort. |
| Tan Pin Seng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 418 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the first information report or police report is not a document which should contain the entire case for the prosecution. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 376(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 376(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 354 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, s 18 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, s 177 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act, s 136 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rape
- Outraging modesty
- Step-daughter
- Penile penetration
- Hymenal tear
- First information report
- Corroboration
- Child witness
- Voluntary statement
15.2 Keywords
- Rape
- Outraging Modesty
- Sexual Assault
- Child Abuse
- Singapore Law
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Statutory Rape
- Evidence Law