PP v DU: Unnatural Offence & Outraging Modesty - Alibi Defence, Sufficiency of Charge Particulars
In Public Prosecutor v DU, the High Court of Singapore heard a case against the Accused charged with committing an unnatural offense and outraging the modesty of the victim, V. The Defence objected to the charges, arguing they were vague under Section 159(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found the charges were sufficiently particular, and a trial within a trial (voir dire) was conducted to determine the admissibility of statements made by the Accused. Ultimately, the court convicted the Accused on both charges, sentencing him to imprisonment and caning.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted on both charges.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning charges of unnatural offense and outraging modesty. The court considered the alibi defense, sufficiency of charge particulars, and admissibility of evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Eugene Lee Yee Leng, Chong Li Min |
| DU | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | S K Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eugene Lee Yee Leng | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Chong Li Min | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| S K Kumar | S K Kumar and Associates |
4. Facts
- The Accused was charged with voluntarily having carnal intercourse against the order of nature with V and using criminal force on V intending to outrage her modesty.
- The alleged offences occurred sometime between 1998 and 1999 at Block 370 Tampines Street 34 #xx, Singapore.
- V was about seven to eight years old at the time of the alleged abuse.
- V could not remember exactly when she had been to the Tampines flat alone with the Accused.
- V believed the object inserted into her mouth was the Accused's private part.
- V did not tell her mother about what happened to her because she did not know that what had happened to her was wrong and she was afraid she might not be believed.
- The Accused gave four statements to the police, which the Defence challenged the admissibility of.
- The vaginal examination of V showed old hymenal tears at 2, 4, 8 and 11 o’clock, suggesting penile penetration.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v DU, CC 14/2004, [2004] SGHC 238
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alleged first instance of sexual acts against V. | |
| M signed an agreement to sell her flat at Block 872 Tampines Street 84. | |
| V received sex education in Primary Five and realized what the Accused had done was wrong. | |
| V disclosed the abuse to H. | |
| V disclosed the abuse to Myg. | |
| V disclosed the abuse to M. | |
| M and her ex-husband brought V to the Tampines Neighbourhood Police Centre to lodge a police report. | |
| Dr Lisa Wong examined V. | |
| The IO and Senior Staff Sergeant Govindharajoo R went to the Woodlands flat to ask the Accused to go with them to assist them in their investigations. | |
| Accused gave three statements to the police. | |
| Accused made a statement to his wife at his flat at Block 894C Woodlands Drive 50 #03-01, Singapore. | |
| Dr Parvathy Pathy interviewed V and M. | |
| Dr Parvathy Pathy interviewed V and M. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Sufficiency of Particulars in Charge
- Outcome: The court found that the two charges framed did contain such particulars as to the time and place as was reasonably sufficient to give the Accused notice of the matter with which he was charged.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Vagueness of charge
- Compromised alibi defence
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court ruled that the four statements were admissible in evidence.
- Category: Evidentiary
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Threats and inducements
- Defence of Alibi
- Outcome: The court did not accept the alibi defence.
- Category: Substantive
- Credibility of Complainant
- Outcome: The court found V to be generally candid with her evidence.
- Category: Evidentiary
- Sub-Issues:
- Delay in making complaint
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Unnatural Offence
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Mohamed Ali | High Court | Yes | [1933] MLJ 74 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the vagueness of dates in a charge, stating that specific dates should be mentioned to enable the accused to know the charge they are called upon to meet. |
| PP v Yap Kok Meng | High Court | Yes | [1974] 1 MLJ 108 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the need for a person accused of a criminal offence to be informed clearly of the charge made against him. |
| Lim Chuan Huat v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited regarding the ambiguity of the phrase 'various occasions' in a charge and the need for clarity on the exact number of occasions each appellant had allegedly caused hurt to the victim. |
| PP v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 MLJ 193 | Malaysia | Cited to contrast with the present case, noting that a charge specifying an offence of carnal intercourse against the order of nature committed between January and March 1993 was held to be not vague. |
| Ku Lip See v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 194 | Malaysia | Cited regarding a charge alleging the commission of rape between May 1978 at or about 7 pm and June 1978 at or about 7 pm. |
| DT v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited regarding the statement that 'it is not usual human behaviour for a victim not to make a quick complaint to her family or friends'. |
| DT v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 193 | Singapore | Cited regarding the statement that 'it is not usual human behaviour for a victim not to make a quick complaint to her family or friends'. |
| Tang Kin Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidential value of a prompt complaint and the failure to make one. |
| Tan Pin Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 418 | Singapore | Cited regarding the natural reluctance on the part of victims of sexual offenses to make a police report. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 377 Penal Code | Singapore |
| Section 354A(2)(b) Penal Code | Singapore |
| Section 159(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 159(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Section 122(5) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Carnal intercourse
- Fellatio
- Outraging modesty
- Alibi
- Voir dire
- Hymenal tears
- Delay in disclosure
- Threats
- Inducements
15.2 Keywords
- Unnatural offence
- Outraging modesty
- Alibi defence
- Sufficiency of charge
- Admissibility of evidence
- Delay in complaint
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Evidence
- Sexual Offences