Govindaraj Perumalsamy v PP: Identification Parade Irregularities and Sentencing in Robbery with Hurt Case
In Govindaraj Perumalsamy and Others v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals against conviction and sentence for Govindaraj Perumalsamy, Ramaiah Guna Sekaran, Rathinam Manikandan, and Soupramaniane D Jeamany, who were convicted under s 394 of the Penal Code for robbery with hurt. The court, presided over by Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeals of the first, second, and fourth appellants but allowed the third appellant's appeal, finding the identification evidence against him to be of poor quality and lacking sufficient supporting evidence. The case centered on the reliability of identification evidence, alleged procedural irregularities during the identification parade, and the assessment of witness credibility.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
First, second and fourth appellants’ appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. Third appellant’s appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore High Court addressed appeals against conviction and sentencing for robbery with hurt, focusing on identification evidence and procedural irregularities.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Govindaraj Perumalsamy | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed | Lost | A Rajandran, Pratap Kishan |
| Ramaiah Guna Sekaran | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed | Lost | A Rajandran, Pratap Kishan |
| Rathinam Manikandan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed | Lost | A Rajandran, Pratap Kishan |
| Soupramaniane D Jeamany | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won | A Rajandran, Pratap Kishan |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed for three appellants, appeal allowed for one appellant | Partial | Glenn Seah Kim Ming |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| A Rajandran | A Rajandran, Joseph and Nayar |
| Pratap Kishan | A Rajandran, Joseph and Nayar |
| Glenn Seah Kim Ming | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Veerappan was robbed and assaulted by six unidentified male Indians on 3 February 2003.
- The robbers stole a Nokia 8250 handphone, a gold chain, and $30 cash from Veerappan.
- Veerappan was hit on the head with a wooden pole and suffered punches.
- The police arrested the four appellants on 26 February 2003 based on an informant’s information.
- An identification parade was conducted on 27 February 2003, where Veerappan identified the four appellants.
- The first appellant wore one earring and had a bangle on his right hand.
- The third appellant was standing 6 to 10m away and appeared to be a lookout.
5. Formal Citations
- Govindaraj Perumalsamy and Others v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals, MA 137/2003, 138/2003, 139/2003, 140/2003, [2004] SGHC 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Robbery and assault occurred | |
| Veerappan examined by Dr Pushparanee Somasundram | |
| Appellants arrested | |
| Identification parade conducted | |
| Imprisonment sentences backdated to this date | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Reliability of Identification Evidence
- Outcome: The court found the identification evidence against the first, second, and fourth appellants to be reliable, but the identification evidence against the third appellant to be unreliable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Quality of identification
- Witness credibility
- Procedural irregularities
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR 465
- Procedural Irregularities in Identification Parade
- Outcome: The court found that the alleged procedural irregularities did not occur and did not taint the identification evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Assessment of Witness Credibility
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.
- Category: Procedural
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Robbery with Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heng Aik Ren Thomas v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 465 | Singapore | Laid down the three-step test for identification evidence. |
| R v Turnbull | N/A | No | [1977] QB 224 | England and Wales | Adapted into a three-step test for identification evidence in Heng Aik Ren Thomas v PP. |
| R v Baskerville | N/A | No | [1916] 2 KB 658 | England and Wales | Discussed the type of corroboration evidence required. |
| PP v L (a minor) | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 219 | Singapore | Stated that a victim of crime would naturally take a good look at his perpetrator and commit his face to memory. |
| Simon Joseph v PP | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 196 | Singapore | An accused’s conviction should not be upheld merely because his defence was disbelieved by the trial judge. |
| Lewis Christine v PP | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 165 | Singapore | Innocent discrepancies must be distinguished from deliberate lies. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o C D Athananasius v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | The trial judge is entitled to determine which part of a witness’s testimony remains credible despite its discrepancies. |
| Mohammed Zairi bin Mohamad Mohtar v PP | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 344 | Singapore | There is no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must be believed in its entirety or not at all. |
| Ang Jwee Herng v PP | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 474 | Singapore | The court recognises and accepts that human fallibility in observation, retention and recollection is oftentimes inevitable in weighing the evidence of a witness. |
| PP v Victor Rajoo | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 417 | Singapore | A finding on a witness’s credibility should be tested against objective facts and evidence. |
| Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 464 | Singapore | So long as the inconsistencies in a witness’s evidence were minor in nature, or related to minor issues, it did not undermine his evidence in respect of the key issues. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | A witness’s evidence need not be treated with unnecessary caution simply because he has some self-interest in the matter. |
| Loh Khoon Hai v PP | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 321 | Singapore | The tariff sentence for an offence under s 394 of the Penal Code is six years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 394 | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) s 15(3) | Singapore |
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) s 35(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Identification parade
- Identification evidence
- Procedural irregularities
- Witness credibility
- Robbery with hurt
- Three-step test
- Supporting evidence
- Manifestly excessive sentence
15.2 Keywords
- robbery
- hurt
- identification
- parade
- evidence
- sentence
- appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Evidence
- Criminal Law