PP v Daniel Vijay: Joint Murder Charge for Robbery Resulting in Death
In Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and Others, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, convicted Daniel Vijay, Christopher Samson, and Nakamuthu Balakrishnan on July 28, 2008, for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from the death of Wan Cheon Kem, a lorry driver, during a robbery. The court found that the accused shared a common intention to commit robbery, which resulted in Wan's death, making them equally culpable. All three accused persons were found guilty as charged and the mandatory death sentence was passed on them.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
All three accused persons were found guilty as charged and the mandatory death sentence was passed on them.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Daniel Vijay and others were convicted of murder for the death of a lorry driver during a robbery. The court found they shared a common intention.
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 | Amarjit Singh of Deputy Public Prosecutors Lee Cheow Han of Deputy Public Prosecutors Kok Pin Chin Stanley of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan | Defendant | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost | |
| Christopher Samson s/o Anpalagan | Defendant | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost | |
| Nakamuthu Balakrishnan | Defendant | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Amarjit Singh | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Lee Cheow Han | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Kok Pin Chin Stanley | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Singa Retnam | Kertar & Co |
| K Jayakumar Naidu | Kertar & Co |
| Sunil Sudheesan | Khattar Wong |
| Subhas Anandan | Khattar Wong |
| Allagarsamy s/o Palaniyappan | Allagarsamy & Co |
| Mohd Muzammil | Muzammil Nizam & Partners |
4. Facts
- The accused conspired to rob a lorry carrying handphones.
- The first accused staged an accident to stop the victim's lorry.
- The third accused assaulted the victim with a baseball bat.
- The victim died from intracranial hemorrhage and cerebral contusions.
- The accused transferred stolen handphones to another lorry.
- The accused left the injured victim in his lorry without summoning aid.
- The first accused drove the lorry to Pasir Ris Carpark A.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and Others, CC 16/2007, [2008] SGHC 120
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Murder committed along Changi Coast Road | |
| Police informed about bloodied man inside vehicle at Pasir Ris Carpark A | |
| Ragu and Arsan arrested | |
| Wan Cheon Kem passed away | |
| First and second accused surrendered to police | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found the statements were made voluntarily and admitted them as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Compliance with Criminal Procedure Code
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 1 SLR 356
- [1994] 2 SLR 243
- [2006] 3 SLR 290
- [1995] 2 SLR 121
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that there was a common intention among the accused to commit robbery and that the violence was in furtherance of that intention.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Participation in criminal act
- Knowledge of likelihood of collateral offense
- Related Cases:
- [2008] SGCA 20
- [1999] 1 SLR 682
- Defence of Sudden Fight
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of sudden fight, finding that the assault was premeditated and cruel.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Absence of premeditation
- No undue advantage or cruel acts
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 2 SLR 506
- Defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of grave and sudden provocation, finding that the attack was premeditated and the victim's alleged aggression was not credible.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deprivation of self-control
- Grave and sudden provocation
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 345
- Liability under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The court found that the injuries were intentionally inflicted and sufficient to cause death, satisfying the requirements under s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to inflict bodily injury
- Sufficiency of injury to cause death
- Related Cases:
- AIR 1958 SC 465
- [2005] 4 SLR 582
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Death Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Robbery
- Homicide
11. Industries
- Transportation
- Logistics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zailani bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 356 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if issues raised by the Defence give rise to an inference or a nagging suspicion that the statement was not made voluntarily, then the statement must be held to be inadmissible. |
| Garnam Singh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 243 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in order for drug withdrawal symptoms to render a statement involuntary, the person must be in a state of near delirium when the statement was made. |
| PP v Leong Siew Chor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 290 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the failure to read back a statement would not render the statement inadmissible so long as the maker of the statement was given the opportunity and time to go through what was recorded and to made amendments to the statement if necessary. |
| Tan Yew Lee v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if a threat had indeed been made, the first accused would have known that it was an empty threat as he had already been charged with murder a day earlier. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 45 | Singapore | Cited for the law on retracted statements. |
| Lim Thian Lai v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 319 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused can be convicted solely upon his own confession even though that statement is subsequently retracted. |
| Panya Martmontree v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a retracted confession of a co-accused implicating the accused in the offence may also be relied upon to establish the accused’s guilt. |
| Taw Cheng Kong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 943 | Singapore | Cited as an example of where it was correct for the court to have accorded precious little weight to the accused’s statements because of how he had changed his story repeatedly. |
| Virsa Singh v State of Punjab | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1958 SC 465 | India | Cited for the four elements that must be proved to establish liability under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
| PP v Lim Poh Lye | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR 582 | Singapore | Cited for reaffirming the decision of Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, which held that four elements must be proved to establish liability under s 300(c). |
| Tan Chun Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 506 | Singapore | Cited for the three main ingredients that must be present to invoke the defence of sudden fight under Exception 4 to s 300. |
| PP v Kwan Cin Cheng | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the two distinct requirements for the defence of grave and sudden provocation to apply. |
| Lee Chez Kee v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited for the correct interpretation of s 34 of the Penal Code. |
| Too Yin Sheong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited for the reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is, the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing the act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 302 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 300 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 394 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 397 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common intention
- Retracted statements
- Voluntariness of statement
- Sudden fight
- Grave and sudden provocation
- Baseball bat
- Lorry
- Handphones
- Robbery
- CAC pass-office
- Intracranial haemorrhage
- Cerebral contusions
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Robbery
- Common Intention
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Penal Code
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Evidence | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Robbery
- Homicide
- Evidence
- Sentencing