PP v Sundarti Supriyanto: Culpable Homicide & Provocation Defense
In Public Prosecutor v Sundarti Supriyanto, the High Court of Singapore, on 24 September 2004, found Sundarti Supriyanto guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing the initial charge of murder. The case involved the death of Sundarti's employer, with Sundarti claiming provocation, private defense, and sudden fight. The court considered the evidence and arguments, ultimately finding that the exception of provocation applied, leading to the reduced charge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment reserved.
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sundarti Supriyanto was convicted of culpable homicide, not murder, due to grave and sudden provocation. The court considered abuse suffered.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Charge of murder reduced to culpable homicide | Partial | Jaswant Singh, Eugene Lee, Aaron Lee, Adrian Yeo |
| Sundarti Supriyanto | Accused | Individual | Convicted of culpable homicide | Lost | Muhamed Muzammil bin Mohd, Johan Ismail |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jaswant Singh | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Eugene Lee | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Aaron Lee | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Adrian Yeo | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Muhamed Muzammil bin Mohd | Muzammil Nizam and Partners |
| Johan Ismail | Johan Ismail and Co |
4. Facts
- Accused was a 23-year-old Indonesian domestic maid working in Singapore.
- The deceased was the accused's female employer.
- The deceased and her daughter were found dead in their apartment after a fire.
- The deceased suffered stab wounds and defensive injuries.
- The accused suffered burns and bite marks.
- The accused initially gave conflicting statements to the police.
- The accused claimed the deceased abused her, depriving her of food and subjecting her to ill-treatment.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Sundarti Supriyanto, CC 19/2003, [2004] SGHC 212
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Death of the deceased occurred between 8.00pm and 10.41pm. | |
| Fire reported at Block 165 Bukit Merah Central at about 10.41pm. | |
| Accused conveyed to the A&E Department of Singapore General Hospital. | |
| Accused admitted for treatment at about 12.23am. | |
| Crystal pronounced dead at about 12.20am. | |
| Dr. Goh attended to the accused at Ward 43, SGH at about 1.15pm. | |
| Anita Foo interviewed the accused in Ward 43, SGH. | |
| Anita Foo interviewed the accused in Ward 43, SGH. | |
| Accused formally arrested at 3.00pm. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Culpable Homicide
- Outcome: Accused found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Category: Substantive
- Murder
- Outcome: Charge of murder reduced to culpable homicide.
- Category: Substantive
- Provocation
- Outcome: Defence of provocation was successfully invoked, leading to a reduced charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Private Defence
- Outcome: Defence of private defence was not applicable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sudden Fight
- Outcome: Defence of sudden fight was not applicable.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: Statements were admitted as they were given voluntarily.
- Category: Procedural
- Use of False Statements
- Outcome: Court considered the use of false statements made by the accused.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Acquittal
- Reduction of Charge
9. Cause of Actions
- Culpable Homicide
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1980–1981] SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles for determining if the Prosecution had made out a case against the accused which if left unrebutted would warrant her conviction. |
| Ithinin bin Kamari v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 245 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case regarding the acts of provocation. |
| Lau Lee Peng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 628 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case regarding the acts of provocation. |
| Soosay v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 272 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements for the exception of private defence to apply. |
| Tan Chun Seng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 506 | Singapore | Cited regarding the main ingredients in the defence of sudden fight. |
| Tan Cheow Bock v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 293 | Singapore | Cited the judgment of Bose J in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR (45) 1958 SC 465 regarding Section 300(c) PC. |
| Virsa Singh v State of Punjab | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR (45) 1958 SC 465 | India | Cited regarding the requirements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for Section 300(c) PC to be made out. |
| Ang Sunny v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965–1968] SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited regarding the law on circumstantial evidence in Singapore. |
| Shepherd v R | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1990) 97 ALR 161 | Australia | Cited regarding the law on circumstantial evidence in Singapore. |
| PP v Oh Laye Koh | High Court | Yes | [1994] SGHC 129 | Singapore | Cited regarding the law on circumstantial evidence in Singapore. |
| R v Lucas | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the test in determining whether the lies of an accused could amount to corroboration of that accused’s guilt. |
| PP v Yeo Choon Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 867 | Singapore | Cited R v Lucas with approval regarding the test in determining whether the lies of an accused could amount to corroboration of that accused’s guilt. |
| Mohamed Kunjo v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1975–1977] SLR 75 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden on the Defence to prove that the exceptions to s 300 PC applied in this case. |
| Somwang Phatthanasaeng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden on the Defence to prove that the exceptions to s 300 PC applied in this case. |
| PP v Kwan Cin Cheng | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements that must be met before the defence of grave and sudden provocation can be raised successfully. |
| Seah Kok Meng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements that must be met before the defence of grave and sudden provocation can be raised successfully. |
| Lim Chin Chong v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 794 | Singapore | Cited regarding the accused's behaviour during the material time and whether the accused was deprived of her self-control. |
| R v Ahluwalia | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 4 All ER 889 | England and Wales | Discussed the applicability of the accused’s arguments in R v Ahluwalia, and noted several points. |
| Rajwant Singh v State of Kerala | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR (53) 1966 SC 1874 | India | Cited for a clear explanation of the test in Virsa Singh. |
| Tan Chee Wee v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 479 | Singapore | Held that in examining whether s 300(c) has been made out, the court’s approach to mens rea is only to determine whether the accused had intended to cause the injury that resulted in the victim’s death. |
| PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) | Federal Court | Yes | [1977] 1 MLJ 15 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the court being entitled to accept one part of a witness’s story while rejecting another part. |
| Ng Kwee Leong v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 942 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court being entitled to accept one part of a witness’s story while rejecting another part. |
| R v Roberts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] EWCA Crim 1069 | England and Wales | The question before the Court in R v Roberts pertained to whether the defence of provocation was adequately canvassed before the jury. |
| Phua Soy Boon v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 285 | Singapore | Even if we were to accept that there was a sudden fight, which we were not inclined to, the fact that the appellant used a sharp chopper against the unarmed deceased showed that he had taken undue advantage of the deceased. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 304(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 300(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 300 Exception 1 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 300 Exception 2 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 300 Exception 4 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Culpable Homicide
- Provocation
- Private Defence
- Sudden Fight
- Abuse
- Domestic Maid
- Homicidal
- Defensive Injuries
15.2 Keywords
- Culpable Homicide
- Provocation
- Domestic Helper
- Singapore Law
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
- Provocation
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Culpable Homicide
- Murder
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing